Hot answers tagged

12

This answer draws on Michael J. Cahill, "Drinking Blood at a Kosher Eucharist? The Sound of Scholarly Silence", Biblical Theology Bulletin 32/4 (2002): 168-181. It should be consulted directly for full discussion and copious further references. OP: Wouldn't Jews be taken aback by the suggestion that they should drink blood? Yes, they would. OP: How ...


11

The other two answers do a good job of answering the question, but I thought it was worth pointing out the actual ban and its explanation: Leviticus 17:10 Explicitly makes your point for you; those who consume the blood of animals are cut off from the Jews, but then verse 11 explains the reason for the ban on blood of animals; drinking blood takes upon ...


7

Clearly No Distinction of Being Your core question is "Did the Synoptic writers intend to convey any distinction between διάβολος and σατανᾶς?" If by "distinction," you mean differing personalities (i.e. persons or beings), then I believe you have already answered your own question by noting the fact that Matthew and/or Luke uses διάβολος in places where ...


6

Let's consider for a moment what the Farrer (Mt used Mk, Lk used Mk and Mt) and Wilke (Lk used Mk, Mt used Mk and Lk) theories suggest that the third evangelist in each case did. (For what it's worth, I would regard Kloppenborg's layered Q as a nuanced form of Wilke: he puts the sayings material in the Lucan order, then adds in some para-Marcan material.) ...


6

Jesus had aleady shocked his followers with references to drinking blood in John Chapter 6. "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink" When leads to.. As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. I think we can infer that by the time of the Last Supper, any disciples who had a problem with ...


4

Relationship of the texts To determine how to reconcile the Gospels accounts, we first need to determine the relationship between the different accounts. The best way to do this is to look at the original Greek. Below are the verses in question. Since a few Biblical scholars also think Luke 10:4 is related, I went ahead and included it too. The Greek ...


3

Note: The context of the following argument is confined to the NT. The use of διαβολος in the LXX is another matter, entirely. There can be little doubt that διαβολος and σατανας are referring to the same individual. Clear support for this is given by the authors of the temptation passages in Matthew and Luke. Both authors introduce the tempter as "του ...


3

Since the stories are incompatible, can we conclude that at least one of them was invented? How can we tell which is true, if any? I would like to challenge the assumption that the the two narratives of the birth of Jesus are incompatible. Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown writes: This leads us to the observation that the two narratives are not ...


3

This is a good question, and touches on a number of hermeneutical nuances. In order to bring out some of the subtleties which will underlie our answer, I'd like to begin by reviewing a number of key assumptions inherent in the question itself. Assumption 1: The disciples were Jews It is true that the disciples were of Israelite descent and had grown up ...


3

Uta Ranke-Heinemann says, in Putting Away Childish Things, page 7, that the nativity accounts in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are, with respect to time, place, and circumstances, a collection of legends. She says (page 11) Luke wants to make the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem plausible by fabricating the story of the census. But since he handles the facts ...


3

The simple answer is, of course they are different, they are describing actions that happened on two separate occasions. One narrates from His birth until 40 days later; while the other tells of events that happened around the age of two. First you have to remember that there were no chapter and verse markers in the original Greek; you can’t always assume ...


3

There are two possible explanations. One is that the individual Gospel writers did not arrange events in a chronologic order; each one organized the events in a way that made the most sense to their audience or to best fit their theological emphasis. The second is that Jesus did this on more than one occasion and John records the first which took place ...


2

In answer to the question, when did Jesus cleanse the Temple, I would suggest we consider to two Old Testament contexts, first from Lev 14:34-45 concerning the investigation of corruption in a house (leprous plague) and second from the command in Exo 12:15 to have all leaven removed from your house prior to Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread. In regards to ...


2

This is an emphatic NO! Sextus Julius Africancus, a 2nd century historian, wrote that two other non-Christian historians Thallus and Phlegon also wrote about this darkness. During the time of Jesus' death they reported darkness by solar eclipse. Here is what Julius writes in XVIII. [1102]: On the Circumstances Connected with Our Saviour's Passion and ...


1

1. Question Restatement: NASB, Matt. 13:10 - And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 2. Quick Answer NASB, 1 Corinthians 2:8 - the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; NASB, Colossians 2:15 - When He ...


1

Since Mark never uses "the devil" it is impossible to know what he thought about that word. Matthew uses "Satan" and "the devil" as synonyms in 4:10-4:11, so he certainly thought of them as interchangeable. (Though he may have preferred one to the other in some circumstances.) There is at least one place (and possibly two) where Luke changes a passage ...


1

Background The equation of Satan and the devil is a largely Christian concept that has little foundation in Judaism, so it is instructive to look at the Jewish concept of the satan (not a proper name) in the Second Temple period before considering how the Synoptics see Satan. Zechariah 3:1-2 has Satan as an adversary who wrongly accuses Joshua, but he is ...


1

In the original Hebrew we find the LORD (yud-hey-vahv-hey) says to my Lord (Adonee). The second lord, being in the singular, is referring to a human king or nobleman. In historical context it becomes clear that this psalm, written by David, was meant to be sung by the kohenim during temple liturgy. The kohenim would sing "The LORD says to my lord (king ...


1

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15 NKJV) When rightly divided, the two accounts do not conflict: In those days it occurred that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole Roman empire should be registered. This was the first ...


1

Each gospel writer put in those things which further and advance the conclusion to which he is heading toward. Of importance to Matthew is the royal line coming down from king David. Jesus must have a royal bloodline so David is mentioned 6 times in chap. 1. In MATT.1:1 David is mentioned before Abraham who fathered the nation of Israel. This shows Jesus ...


1

Since Mark's Gospel used the term 'gospel' in verse 1:1 (the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God), we have tended to use the word in the quite specific sense of the story of the mission, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. At Matthew 11:5, this clearly could not have been what was being taught, although they could have taught that Jesus had begun to ...


1

I'm afraid it is not possible entirely to harmonise the different accounts. Accepting the priority of Mark, which says there was one young man in the tomb when the women arrived, it is possible to say that Mark's informant was simply unaware of the second man reported in Luke's Gospel. Going from Luke to John, the only change is that the two men in shining ...


1

Source criticism is the modern approach to harmonize Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It examines details written as if a single event has been described differently due to different source(s). This theory is based on the belief that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are a compilation of sources, not original documents. Thus, differences in descriptions are a result of ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible