Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: This Peter Rock thing 2

Expand Messages
  • Dorisian
    Acually Jesus had to speak Aramaic to Peter because Peter did not speak Greek at the time. If you look at the Peterine Letters you will see that the originals
    Message 1 of 13348 , Aug 2, 1999
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Acually Jesus had to speak Aramaic to Peter
      because Peter did not speak Greek at the time. If you
      look at the Peterine Letters you will see that the
      originals are in Aramaic. Greek was used by Paul and the
      people who composed Pauls letters.
    • ehlsmith@worldnet.att.net
      I will. Thanks.
      Message 13348 of 13348 , Aug 6, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        I will. Thanks.

        --- In catholicquestions@yahoogroups.com, Cecilieaux <cecilieaux@...> wrote:
        >
        > Check it out further. The work is part of a three-volume series (he's
        > working on the fourth).
        >
        > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 6:08 PM, <ehlsmith@...> wrote:
        >
        > > Thanks for asking, Cecilieaux. I don't think I have read Meier, or if I did
        > > it must have been back in the '90s when his first edition came out, and I
        > > wasn't keeping track of what I read. But your question made me re-read my
        > > source notes a little clearer the second time, and I see I made a very
        > > serious error. The book which impressed me most about non-biblical sources
        > > for the historic Jesus was not Bock's, but
        > > "Jesus Outside the New Testament : an introduction to the ancient evidence"
        > > / Robert E. Van Voorst. Grand Rapids, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans, c2000.
        > >
        > > I apologize for my careless mistake.
        > >
        > > Peace,
        > > Ned
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In catholicquestions@yahoogroups.com, Cecilieaux <cecilieaux@>
        > > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Thanks for your thoughts, Ned. Have you tried John Meier's "A Marginal
        > > Jew"?
        > > >
        > > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:12 PM, <ehlsmith@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > Dear Cecilieaux, Michael, and Nathan,
        > > > >
        > > > > Josephus's work not only mentioned Jesus, but also James, the brother
        > > of
        > > > > Jesus, who would have been a contemporary of Josephus when both
        > > supposedly
        > > > > lived in Jerusalem. The question about Josephus's work though, is
        > > whether
        > > > > parts were added by later Christian scribes. All copies existing today
        > > were
        > > > > produced by monks who made their copies after Christianity had spread
        > > > > throughout the Empire.
        > > > >
        > > > > One argument for the historical existence of an actual Jesus of
        > > Nazareth is
        > > > > based on the Nativity story. Many scholars consider the allegation that
        > > > > Joseph and Mary had to travel to Joseph's ancestral home an absurdity.
        > > Who
        > > > > would run a census that way? It would not only be extremely disruptive
        > > to
        > > > > the economy but would defeat some of the purposes of holding a census.
        > > > > Censuses are held to find out how many are living where, not primarily
        > > where
        > > > > did they come from?
        > > > >
        > > > > They see that story as just a plot device, to provide a Bethlehem birth
        > > to
        > > > > someone the public knew was from Galilee, since some scripture stated
        > > the
        > > > > messiah would come from Bethlehem. If Jesus was just a fiction there
        > > would
        > > > > be no need for such a plot device- just have him come from Bethlehem.
        > > It
        > > > > suggests that instead they were trying to tailor facts around an actual
        > > > > person who was from Nazareth.
        > > > >
        > > > > A book I recommend on the issue of non-biblical sources for Jesus is:
        > > > >
        > > > > Studying the historical Jesus : a guide to sources and methods /
        > > Darrell L.
        > > > > Bock.
        > > > > Bock, Darrell L.
        > > > > Grand Rapids, MI : Baker Academic ; Leicester, England : Apollos,
        > > c2002.
        > > > >
        > > > > Peace,
        > > > > Ned
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In catholicquestions@yahoogroups.com, Cecilieaux <cecilieaux@>
        > > > > wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Oy,vey, M! That's a load of questions ... one by one, below.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:00 AM, michael quinlan <mpquin@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Dear C,
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Wasn't Jesus mentioned by a contemporary historian?
        > > The
        > > > > name
        > > > > > > escapes me.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You're thinking of Josephus. That's second (or third) hand. There's
        > > ample
        > > > > > evidence that there was a movement that told the story of Jesus, from
        > > > > which
        > > > > > Josephus gets his opinion. What there isn't is independent
        > > > > (non-Christian)
        > > > > > first-hand evidence of Jesus himself.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > Also, wasn't he mentioned in conjunction with Pontius Pilate?
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > There's evidence of Pontius Pilate, who apparently go his comeuppance
        > > a
        > > > > few
        > > > > > years after the crucifixion. Imperial auditors found he was pocketing
        > > > > more
        > > > > > than he should and he was removed. But, again, there is no evidence
        > > of PP
        > > > > > and Jesus.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > I vaguely recall that his place in history was verified outside the
        > > > > Bible.
        > > > > > > Within the Bible, wouldn't elements of the divine be expressed by
        > > > > miracles,
        > > > > > > or were miracles also associated with those that were chosen by
        > > God?
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Moses and a whole rafter of prophets performed miracles, without ever
        > > > > > claiming divinity. I'll leave Mary for a separate message as it could
        > > > > start
        > > > > > a whole argu ... um gentlemanly debate.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > C
        > > > > >
        > > > > > On Aug 5, 2011, *Cecilieaux* <cecilieaux@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > That's the teaching, from post-apostolic times on and, yes, who
        > > knows. If
        > > > > > you say the creed with belief, as I do, I believe in the God from
        > > God,
        > > > > > Begotten not Made, etc., without necessarily knowing how this is
        > > > > possible.
        > > > > > That's why it's called faith.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > It's important to understand that Nicea-Constantinople defined these
        > > > > things
        > > > > > in the way that became the norm in the development of doctrine: the
        > > via
        > > > > > negativa. The councils didn't add something that was not there (the
        > > > > trinity
        > > > > > is implied, by name, in the command to baptize in Matthew). They
        > > merely
        > > > > shot
        > > > > > down theories that were, in their view, not consonant with apostolic
        > > > > > teaching.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Now if you want to debate what we know about the natures of Jesus the
        > > > > > Christ, I would begin by arguing that he wasn't human since he wasn't
        > > an
        > > > > > actual historical figure, which is sustained by the absence of
        > > > > independent
        > > > > > evidence that the man ever existed. So there goes the human Jesus, or
        > > > > Yeshua
        > > > > > bar Yosif. Arguably, also, that Jesus (per the gospels) did not
        > > affirm
        > > > > his
        > > > > > divinity in an indisputable way. The full idea began to be expressed
        > > in a
        > > > > > developed way sometime between the Pentecost event and the conversion
        > > of
        > > > > > Paul, the man who arguably invented Christianity as a religion
        > > separate
        > > > > from
        > > > > > Judaism.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Of course, neither the divine or human natures of Jesus the Christ
        > > were
        > > > > at
        > > > > > issue before post-apostolic times, when the Christians began to rub
        > > > > against
        > > > > > the Greek mystery religions and the Church became definitively and
        > > > > > irrevocably Gentilized, losing many Judaic understandings that might
        > > have
        > > > > > been helpful to keep in mind later.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Cheerio,
        > > > > > C
        > > > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:36 PM, michael quinlan <mpquin@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Dear Nathan,
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > As it was explained to me as a child, "Jesus
        > > is
        > > > > 100%
        > > > > > > God, AND 100% Man." But, this adds up to 200% in my book. How can
        > > > > > > something be 100% one thing, and yet 100% something else?? I think
        > > > > this
        > > > > > > falls into the storage bin called "it's a mystery." Do I believe
        > > it?
        > > > > Of
        > > > > > > course! What is the harm in believing it? It does not affect our
        > > > > society.
        > > > > > > There are no 200% beings wandering around that I know of.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > God Bless
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > On Aug 4, 2011, *Nathan* <rdnuclearmed@> wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Very funny.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > I was asking if Jesus was divine? Is Jesus Christ, God?
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > God Bless
        > > > > > > Nathan
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Cecilieaux <cecilieaux@> wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >>
        > > > > > >>
        > > > > > >> How would we be able to tell between truly divine and falsely
        > > divine?
        > > > > > >>
        > > > > > >>
        > > > > > >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Nathan <rdnuclearmed@> wrote:
        > > > > > >>
        > > > > > >>>
        > > > > > >>>
        > > > > > >>> Just trying to stimulate conversation, I thought I'd ask: "Is
        > > Jesus
        > > > > > >>> Christ truly divine?"
        > > > > > >>>
        > > > > > >>>
        > > > > > >>> God Bless
        > > > > > >>> Nathan
        > > > > > >>>
        > > > > > >>>
        > > > > > >>>
        > > > > > >>>
        > > > > > >>
        > > > > > >>
        > > > > > >> --
        > > > > > >> Cecilieaux -- blogging at:
        > > > > > >> Cecilieaux! -- musings of a contrarian <
        > > > > http://cecilieaux.blogspot.com/>
        > > > > > >> Desde Yanquilandia <http://desdeyanquilandia.blogspot.com/>
        > > > > > >> Headline du Jour <http://headlinedujour.wordpress.com/>
        > > > > > >>
        > > > > > >>
        > > > > > >>
        > > > > > >>
        > > > > > >>
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --
        > > > > > Cecilieaux -- blogging at:
        > > > > > Cecilieaux! -- musings of a contrarian <
        > > http://cecilieaux.blogspot.com/>
        > > > > > Desde Yanquilandia <http://desdeyanquilandia.blogspot.com/>
        > > > > > Headline du Jour <http://headlinedujour.wordpress.com/>
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --
        > > > > > Cecilieaux -- blogging at:
        > > > > > Cecilieaux! -- musings of a contrarian <
        > > http://cecilieaux.blogspot.com/>
        > > > > > Desde Yanquilandia <http://desdeyanquilandia.blogspot.com/>
        > > > > > Headline du Jour <http://headlinedujour.wordpress.com/>
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > ------------------------------------
        > > > >
        > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --
        > > > Cecilieaux -- blogging at:
        > > > Cecilieaux! -- musings of a contrarian <http://cecilieaux.blogspot.com/>
        > > > Desde Yanquilandia <http://desdeyanquilandia.blogspot.com/>
        > > > Headline du Jour <http://headlinedujour.wordpress.com/>
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ------------------------------------
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > --
        > Cecilieaux -- blogging at:
        > Cecilieaux! -- musings of a contrarian <http://cecilieaux.blogspot.com/>
        > Desde Yanquilandia <http://desdeyanquilandia.blogspot.com/>
        > Headline du Jour <http://headlinedujour.wordpress.com/>
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.