Saturday, April 6, 2024

Christ is King of the Jews, even if Tovia Refuses to See That

Licoricia of Winchester, Interest, Blood Libel · Look at This · Palestinian Origins · Christ is King of the Jews · Whaddo You Meme ?? Tried to Give His POV on Christ is King · Colin (Not a Pastor) on Fight For Truth Had a Better Take · Sharing : Isabel Brown · Some Responses to Candida Moss (Beginning of Video) · Christ is King of the Jews, even if Tovia Refuses to See That · Tovia tried to counter ... · When the True God Revealed Himself (sharing) · Tovia Singer Fails to Discredit the Gospels · Sharing on the Trinity in the OT

Preface, on sth Tovia repeated often:

6:18 Maybe time to bring it up.

All of them are out to convince you for Christianity, yes, because they knew it was the truth.

You are there for convincing against Christianity, and you run that on wild speculation.

They want to make people into Christians

You want to make people into non-Christians.

Who Wrote the New Testament and Why did They Write It? -Rabbi Tovia Singer
Tovia Singer | 5 April 2024

1:51 Codex Vaticanus is, as the name implies, a Codex.

"Julius Caesar may have been the first Roman to reduce scrolls to bound pages in the form of a note-book, possibly even as a papyrus codex.[17] At the turn of the 1st century AD, a kind of folded parchment notebook called pugillares membranei in Latin became commonly used for writing in the Roman Empire.[18] Theodore Cressy Skeat theorized that this form of notebook was invented in Rome and then spread rapidly to the Near East.[19]"

"Codices are described in certain works by the Classical Latin poet, Martial. He wrote a series of five couplets meant to accompany gifts of literature that Romans exchanged during the festival of Saturnalia. Three of these books are specifically described by Martial as being in the form of a codex; the poet praises the compendiousness of the form (as opposed to the scroll), as well as the convenience with which such a book can be read on a journey. In another poem by Martial, the poet advertises a new edition of his works, specifically noting that it is produced as a codex, taking less space than a scroll and being more comfortable to hold in one hand. According to Theodore Cressy Skeat, this might be the first recorded known case of an entire edition of a literary work (not just a single copy) being published in codex form, though it was likely an isolated case and was not a common practice until a much later time.[20]"

"As early as the early 2nd century, there is evidence that a codex—usually of papyrus—was the preferred format among Christians. In the library of the Villa of the Papyri, Herculaneum (buried in AD 79), all the texts (of Greek literature) are scrolls (see Herculaneum papyri). However, in the Nag Hammadi library, hidden about AD 390, all texts (Gnostic) are codices. Despite this comparison, a fragment of a non-Christian parchment codex of Demosthenes' De Falsa Legatione from Oxyrhynchus in Egypt demonstrates that the surviving evidence is insufficient to conclude whether Christians played a major or central role in the development of early codices—or if they simply adopted the format to distinguish themselves from Jews.[25]"

2:52 In Acts, St. Paul argues with the Synagogue of Beroea.

A Christian Church to this day, by now since centuries and probably most of the time since 1053, Greek Orthodox.

This would be the context in which he does the same for Jews in Thessalonica.

And he praises them as basically his best Church.

3:06 It's years since I went through St. Paul's letters, but if your impression is "the big issue is if Christians have to keep the commandments" this gives a very huge impression that St. Paul's followers were in a big part of Jewish ethnicity.

3:39 That's like saying "we have no way of knowing Moses was the son of Amram"

We know that because of the Hebrew tradition, 2000 years ago common to those who were already Samaritans, those who became what we now call Jews and those who became Christians.

We know the authors were Hebrews, except St. Luke. For Hebrews, two suggestions involve Sts Paul and Barnabas, both disciples to Gamaliel. For the Johannine corpus, the majority position in tradition says "the son of Zebedee" while Fr. Jean Colson has made an argument the author is not one of the twelve, but instead a Cohen.

3:53 John, end of first century.
Matthew, 30's or 40's, first half.
Luke and Mark, around the middle.

Based on? Tradition, like identity of author of the Pentateuch with main participant of the Exodus event. Which we Catholic Christians already commemorated in the Easter Vigil, and you will presumably commemorate after Second Adar is over.

You attack Christian tradition? You shoot yourself in the foot.

Some Jews actually do not believe Moses existed, that's a different story. If you are not like them, and you shouldn't be, you base that on Tradition. Like we Catholics do with Matthaean priority and two of the Gospels by Apostles (according to Jean Colson, St. John would have been another tier of Apostles than the 12, but as a witness to the Resurrection, still an Apostle, the last surviving one of them).

"3:58 and believe these things 4:00 as Christianity would develop the 4:03 beliefs of what Christians uh seized uh 4:08 as it developed so the story just 4:12 snowballs and it's becomes more and more 4:15 embellished"

Like your speculations on how Christianity came to be without a Resurrection, you mean?

4:40 St. Peter reads alternatively from the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, skipping some, inserting some, and his secretary Mark takes notes, and this happened before St. Peter was killed by Nero and also before St. Mark came to Alexandria, as the first bishop there.

This is obviously not exactly the version of the tradition given by St. Augustine, but it is the one of Clement the Stromatist, who lived, precisely, in Alexandria.

"The Stromata (Greek: Στρώματα), a mistake for Stromateis (Στρωματεῖς, "Patchwork," i.e., Miscellanies), attributed to Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215), is the third of a trilogy of works regarding the Christian life."

This means his life spans the following popes of Alexandria or patriarchs, or less anachronistically bishops:

(8) Markianos (142–152)
(9) Celadion (152–166)
(10) Agrippinus (167–178)
(11) Julian (178–189)
(12) Demetrius I (189–232)

He died after all of the following had died, the first being the Gospeller:

(1) Mark the Evangelist (43–68)
(2) Anianus (68–85)
(3) Avilius (85–98)
(4) Kedron (98–109)
(5) Primus (109–121)
(6) Justus (121–131)
(7) Eumenes (131–141)

To pretend Clement or Celadion and Agrippinus to name bishops from his youth didn't know what they were talking about won't fly.

4:52 There is no childhood narrative in either Mark or John.

Because Peter and John both became disciples when Jesus was already an adult, and because His older fosterbrother St. James' account of the childhood was already taken in patches by Matthew and Luke, not much to go for a third or fourth Gospel taken different ones.

5:01 Joseph had died before Jesus took disciples.

St. James the Theadelph obviously knew St. Joseph and who was his father as well as Our Lord's fosterfather, but he became a believer only later after the Resurrection, at least an open one.

So, no reason why either Mark or John should mention him. In Luke he's mentioned in connexion with the supposal that in Mark 6 is voiced so Peter heard it. However, the guys were not mentioning Joseph who had already died.

5:27 St. Mark is also not denying He was the Son of God who became Man at His conception. It's just that he's not telling the story of that.

5:33 "made up their own stories that are not related to each other"

Or rather, each took a pick from St. James' Proto-Gospel, so they are related. To each other because to fact.

5:54 There are two candidates, if you look at early tradition.

St. Irenaeus, who left Asia Minor at 16, affirms the Gospeller was the Son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve.

Those left back in Asia Minor do not seem to think so. One of them, defending 14th of Nisan, refers to a John "who wore the golden headband" meaning he probably served as Cohen Gadol one of the years in the Temple.

"5:52 it's very unlikely that John 21 was 5:56 written by whoever wrote John 20"

What's the exact problem?

"it's 5:58 very unlikely that whoever wrote John 6:01 1-8 mean chapter 1 verse 1 through Verse 6:04 18 also orth [wrote the] other part it's possible 6:07 it's just unlikely"

Again, what is the exact problem?

6:29 "the Jews are the bad guys"

1) Not in the mouth of Jesus. The guys St. John retrospectively qualifies as Jews hadn't yet stolen the name from the pious Jews who became the first Christians.
2) Some Jews actually did think "Jews" were the bad guys, they preferred to call themselves "Israelites" (I think this is Essenians). In John 1, at the calling of Nathanael, Our Lord is on board with what seems to be this usage.

So, what St. John presumably did was:

1) receive the word of Our Lord on Patmos, where He assures John and his audience that to Him, the bad guys do not own the name Jews, in the perspective of Heaven
2) receive the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, when He retrospectively calls the bad guys "Jews" from an earthly perspective, presumably to tell his audience to not call themselves Jews, presumably because they were mainly ethnically Jewish.

7:08 Even the Mishna is later than all NT books. Not each tractate in it, but their collection.

St. John had no Talmud to refer to, and was himself a great expert on Judaica. As his audience knew.

If he was "known to the High Priests" (a designation reflecting that the office had started to rotate, under impulsion of the Romans), it was probably not as their fishmonger. I don't think fish from lake Genesareth was sold in Jerusalem. It was because he was a priest. Which probably disqualifies him from being the "John" (companion to Peter) mentioned in Acts 4, but not from being the other John, the priest.

7:45 You are very inattentive.

Jesus never uses "Jews" of His enemies in St. John.

It is only John (the narrator) who does so — in retrospect. In a context where Josephus had already gone to court to say "I am a Jew, not a Christian" ... which gives the word "Jew" a somewhat different connotation than half a century or less earlier.

That's a very clear difference of voice.

Book Squid: Adventures in Home Therapy
John didn't write John. And Josephus was a satirist working for the Flavians.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@booksquidadventuresinhomet6856 Do you have an argument, or just an allegation?

9:16 You pretend the citation is arrogant?

You despised not, nor rejected: but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

You are totally out of touch with Christian values. He is simply saying:

  • you received me with the hospitality of Abraham in Mambre (Genesis 18) or Lot in Sodom (Genesis 19)
  • you received me with the hospitality that Jesus will one day reward as directed to Himself (Matthew 25:31 — 40).

In other words, he is saying they have shown the kind of hospitality that God will surely reward. He's not saying he's an angel, and he's not saying he's Jesus Christ. Very much on the contrary.

9:22 Try to trace one thing in Paul you disagree with to Greco-Roman Paganism ... just one. It's a challenge.

9:33 "His interest was power"

He died decapitated. He was often humiliated. He often took off from people who had received him well and honoured him to people who were going to treat him badly or he couldn't know in advance. Doesn't seem very power hungry to me.

9:55 You pretend Acts and the Epistles disagree sharply?

Is there an example that Testify hasn't already debunked? Eric Manning's channel?

10:24 Where in Acts do you pretend Paul went to Jerusalem to circumcise Timothy?

I did a search and found Acts 16, when he came from Jerusalem. The one big time he was there, the Apostolic Council.

10:39 There is a totally different reading of Galatians 2 in Clement. The Cephas that St. Paul opposed was not the Apostle Peter.

Paul was simply exposing frauds, which at first he had taken for people from Jerusalem, which they then weren't.

And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:

In other words, three men pretended to be chief apostles, weren't, but as Paul didn't see the real men all that often, he was at first taken in.

11:11 "they are not eyewitnesses"

Speculation, as tradition says the opposite of Matthew and of John.

Book Squid: Adventures in Home Therapy
Josephus Matthias —that gospel of Matthew's author—was indeed a personal witness to Eleazar's torturous his hands. John the rebel may or may not have witnessed the scene. But he witnessed plenty of things in a century of conflict. For some reason though he was spared by Titus after the destruction of Jerusalem. And although he was taken to Rome, he didn't end up being included in the triumph sacrifice along with Peter.

John would not have written the gospel of John though. It's symbolic nature is fully conceptualized in other Josephus writing. Perhaps Tiberias was responsible for this version of the satire since he was said to be so especially enamored with astrology.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@booksquidadventuresinhomet6856 Did I get you right?

You claim that Matthew and John were both written by Josephus? Or perhaps his father or grandfather?

And as far as I have heard no one ever claimed that "John the rebel" wrote the Gospel of John, so why even take it up?

Can't you do better than those wild reconstructions against Traditional Authorships?

No comments: