₦airaland Forum

To get Correct Interpretation of these Ancient books. You need to consider

1. Language

2. Context.
a Textual Context.
b. Historical Context.
c. Cultural Contest.


First off, who are the "Jews"? In the Book of John, Chapter 1:19 says, "The priests and Levites were sent from the "Jews"; in verse 24, it says it was the Pharisees that sent them. Anytime we see "Jews" in the Book of John, it means the ultra-legalistic Pharisees and not the Jewish population.

In the Gospel of Mark 1:22, it is mentioned how Jesus taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.
In this context, the individuals with authority are the high-ranking Pharisees, and they even made a distinction in that verse, stating that the scribes didn't possess the same level of authority as they did.
As their title implies, scribes were literate men who could read and write; they were teachers too. Scribes were of the tribe of Levi, the priestly tribe.
In 1 Chronicles 24:6, it says, "Shemaiah the son of Nethaneel the scribe, one of the Levites, wrote them before the king....".
The scribes refer to the "priests and Levites" that were sent by the Pharisees/ "Jews" in the Book of John 1:19.
Mark 1:22 can be read as saying that Jesus taught them with authority like the Pharisees, unlike the scribes.

So what does it mean to teach with authority? Matthew 23:2 gives a clue.

Matthew 23:2 states, "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat."
What is Moses' seat? It's a stone (basalt) seat where the head of the synagogue (Pharisees) would sit and teach with authority. In Luke 4:20, after Jesus read the book of Isaiah and closed it, he sat down. Where he sat down to preach is known as "Moses' seat."
The Pharisees, to show their reverence for the Scriptures, always stood when they read it, but when they taught the people, they sat down.
https://www./292171094562534458/

In Matthew 23:3, Jesus told them to follow the law and also to listen to every command of the Pharisees and do what they tell you because they have authority (Moses' seat).

What does it mean to "Obey the Pharisees"? To obey the Pharisees means to follow rules and regulations that govern every aspect of life, literally from the moment you wake in the morning until the moment you sleep at night. It's a whole lifestyle, some examples are, The Shulchan Arukh, which states that we should don our right shoe first, and then the left; but tying shoes is in the opposite order – first left, then right; Including laws like how to wash your hands before eating, Laws pertaining to clothes being worn and many more.

But was Matthew 23:3 talking about this kind of laws? Was Jesus telling his disciples to follow every command the Pharisees tell them, "So do and observe whatever they tell you."

Because in Matthew 23:13-27, Jesus was lambasting these same Pharisees, calling them hypocrites and shutting off the kingdom of heaven against men.

Another clue can be found in Matthew 15:2-3, which talks about the laws pertaining to "Ritual Hand Washing." Interestingly, nowhere in the Torah are the Jewish people commanded to wash their hands. However, the rabbis have made Rabbinical Enactments that add new laws to the Torah. These laws, in Hebrew, are called "Takanot" and the "Shulchan Arukh" I mentioned earlier is one of these laws.

Matthew 15:2-3 reads: "2 Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” 3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the commandments of God for the sake of your tradition?"

In the bolded part, you can see the sharp contrast between the traditions of the elders and the commandments of God in the Torah. Jesus, in verse 3, says these traditions/the takanots/man-made laws of the Pharisees, are breaking the commandments of God.
P.S- Pharisees is the ancient name of modern Orthodox Rabbis

Now, it's important to know that there are two Torahs according to the Pharisees: the Written one called Torah and the Oral Torah called Takanot. The written Torah is what we all refer to as the five books of Moses. The Oral Torah, which has now been written down, is contained in four collections: Mishnah, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud, and Midrash.

One verse I find weird in one of the oral Torah, Midrash Sire Deuteronomy 154 states, "Even if they instruct you that right is left, or left is right, you must obey them."
So, When they say "obey the Pharisees and their laws," this is EXACTLY what they mean.

Though, Not all Jewish sects accept these Pharisees' Oral laws, especially the Karaites.

Up to this point, I have accurately defined who the "Jews" are in the Book of John, their use of two Torahs, and what it means to obey the "Jews" and their oral laws.

So why did the Jews Crucify the King of the Jews?
Jesus obeyed the laws of both the written Torah and the Oral Torah i.e Shema, Sabbath, Shammai etc. He only had disagreements with some of the laws specifically in the Oral Torah, known as Takanot.

The first mention of the "Jews" plotting to kill Jesus is in John 5:16-18, and the main reason was that he broke their Sabbath law, making himself lord over the Sabbath and not the other way around. It's important to note that this specific law is only found in the Oral Torah; Jesus did not break the biblical Sabbath laws(Written Torah).
Another instance of the Jews wanting to kill him is also based on his violation of the Sabbath law, as described in Matthew 12:1-8, 14.

So, which specific Oral law did he break? It's mentioned in John 5:8—the order "pick up your mat" violated [Shabbat 94b.1]
https://www.sefaria.org/Shabbat.94b.1?ven=William_Davidson_Edition_-_English&vhe=William_Davidson_Edition_-_Vocalized_Aramaic&lang=bi

While Jesus was explaining his reasons for breaking this Law, he referred to himself as Son of the Father (Bar abbas), which infuriated the Jews and intensified their desire to kill him. Additionally, Jesus Bar abbas began to gain more popularity. All this is described in John 5:17-18, John 10:29-30, and John 12:19

Calling yourself a Son of Father/Son of God is not uncommon among the Jewish people, but this phrase is reserved for royal families mostly. It was also termed "messiahs."
According to Britannica, the term "Messiah" (from Hebrew mashiaḥ, “anointed”) in Judaism refers to the expected king from the Davidic line who would liberate Israel from foreign oppression and restore the prosperity of its golden age.
Jesus was a lowly carpenter from Nazareth; even Nathaniel in John 1:46 said, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"
The Jews already had a specific image of their messiah and what it composed according to their scriptures, as seen in John 7:41-42. Seeing Jesus with no royal affiliation and whose "father and mother" they knew got them confused, as stated in John 6:42.

In the 1st century AD, the understanding of "Messiah" literally meant a JEWISH KING. In John 6:15, when the Jewish people wanted to make Jesus a king, he fled.

While writing this article, I discovered a great insight, and I even had to rename my title. I'll continue this discussion in another article.

SIRTee15:
U will come here behaving like a thirsty dog that needs water as if your life depends on it.
Ok they will offer u opportunity to crave your thirst but all u will be writing is nonsense.
That's why nobody takes u serious anymore.

And here you are abusing me at 2:12am.

Bro, Jesus Christ that is portrayed in the gospel is a composite character, he does not exist.

How come all scholars are conspiracy theories ?

Just take a moment and doubt your Nicene doctrine.
You don't have to worship Jesus, you are the Christ already, Autogenes.

SIRTee15:
I gave u my time today but u wasted it. I would have used it more productively.

U are nothing but a time waster. This is the reason nobody wants to debate u.

People will be talking mathematics, u will arrive and start talking about weather. How does that make sense.

U will be desperately begging for attention as if u have something reasonable to discuss.
But yet still the same conspiracy junks without any reasonable evidence.

Your mental psychosis has blinded you.

https://ancient-hebrew.org/semitic-origins/semitic-origins-of-the-book-of-matthew.htm

You are exactly where the Catholic wants you to be, defending it vigorously.

SIRTee15:
What does Golgotha has to do with language spoken by Jesus.
Everybody u see why I hate debating this guy.

Look at the context of what I said compare with this.

You already said earlier you'll stop replying, so who are you complaining to?

SIRTee15:
2 of Jesus disciples had Greek names Andrew and Philip. What does that tell u about the communality of the Greek language influence in Judea region

And how many does Aramaic have?

SIRTee15:
The likelihood that Jesus had Greek-speaking disciples is highlighted in John 12:20–23, where a group of Greeks specifically approach Philip asking to speak to Jesus who then in turn approaches Andrew. Philip and Andrew then together approach Jesus about the Greeks.


Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the festival. 21 They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. “Sir,” they said, “we would like to see Jesus.” Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus.

In John 7:35 the crowd even speculates that Jesus might leave them and go and teach Greeks, which presumably means they knew he could speak Greek.


The Jews said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him? Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?

Greeks in that context means gentiles

SIRTee15:
Jesus spoke to Roman officials, in what language?
Produce evidence the Roman officials could speak Aramaic. I'm not interested in your opinion. I want evidence.

The gospel made sure to exceptionally show Jesus spoke nothing but Aramaic whenever he is in Capernaum.

SIRTee15:
Why did Pontus Pilate wrote king of the Jews in Greek if Greek was an irrelevant language in Judea. Who were the target audience?

You have already seen it but mental psychosis, you can't believe the truth.

After Pilate was done writing what did they say?
John 19:20
Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.

Now the place Jesus was crucified was Golgotha.
Which language is Golgotha where "Many of the Jews read this sign"?

SIRTee15:
So they Roman officials are not obliged to learn the local language then. So what made u think the Roman centurion learnt and spoke Aramaic.

Why was the inscription on Jesus head written in Greek? If Greek is irrelevant in Judea why would Pilate have the inscription written in Greek.
Who are the targeted audience expected to read the inscription in Greek?

He has been posted to Palestine probably for years, common sense he will learn the language of the common people.


Which language is 'Akeldama'?

SIRTee15:
.

You no even get point, where did this event take place?
Carper'naum is the center of his public ministry in Galilee Matthew 4:12–17.

Now this centurion is kind of a "big man", he has servants and a whole household, that means he has been living in that place for years, how did he communicate?
Please riddle me in john 4:51, his servantS, was he communicating with them in "roman lingua franca" or better still did he import "roman lingua franca" speaking servantS into carper'naum?

SIRTee15:
Produce evidence a Roman official has to learn a local language to be stationed in the region.

So Latin is the lingua franca of the Roman empire in the first century AD? Is that what u saying?

Read slowly
A roman stationed in Palestine would attempt to learn some hebrew and Aramaic since these was the languages in everyday life in that part of the world then.

in how many languages did pilate write "king of the Jews"?
And why did he do it?

how come NONE of your gospel was written in the languages Jews understand?

In the first century AD, Aramaic was widespread throughout the Middle East, as supported by Josephus's testimony in "The Jewish War."
It's widely accepted that Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic. The areas where Jesus spent much of his time, Judea, Nazareth, and Capernaum, were Aramaic-speaking communities.

According to ancient Christian Tradition, the four canonical Gospels were written by their supposed authors. The earliest tradition regarding the origin of the Gospel comes from Papias of Hierapolis, living in the second century. This tradition is documented in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History.
Papias's testimony is highly regarded by many Christian apologists because he allegedly gathered information from individuals who had direct knowledge of Jesus.

Today, only fragments of Papias's writings remain, preserved in later excerpts. These fragments reveal that Papias stated that "Matthew put together the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language...."(Matthew’s “Hebrew dialect” was what we now call a regional dialect of Aramaic,), which contrasts with the Canonical 'Gospel' of Matthew, primarily composed in Greek.

This brings me to the central theme of this article, "Logia or Gospel?".

The difference between "Logia" and a "Gospel" is that Logia refer to sayings or words attributed to Jesus, while a Gospel presents a narrative account of Jesus's life and teachings.
The term "Gospel" is the Anglo-Saxon translation of the Greek word "Euangelion." The Greek term was employed to interpret the Aramaic "awon-Galee-Yoon," which conveys the meaning of "He reveals."
So mark 1:1 would have correctly read "the beginning of the Revelation of Jesus Christ"....

"The word logia applies to teachings of Jesus used as source materials by the gospel writers in the writing of the canonical gospels."

When Papias describes a "Logia" written by Matthew, he isn't actually referring to the "Gospel" of Matthew we have now. Papias describes his Matthew as a collection of Jesus' sayings (Logia) as written in Hebrew, which raises questions about the current Gospel of Matthew, which is in Greek.
Many early church fathers also concur that these "sayings/Logia" were written in Hebrew, though their accounts often echo Papias or Irenaeus, with Irenaeus possibly drawing from Papias, as seen in his writings:

Irenaeus (170 CE): "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect." [Against Heresies 3:1]

Origen (210 CE): "The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same individual who was once a tax collector and later became an apostle of Jesus Christ. He published it for Jewish believers, writing it in Hebrew."

A quote by Eusebius; "Eccl. Hist. 6:25"]
Eusebius (315 CE): "Matthew, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, later committed it to writing in his native tongue. This way, he supplied his presence to other nations through his writings." ["Eccl. Hist. 3:24"]

So clearly this could not have been the Canonical Gospel of Matthew we have now, another point is the death of Judas conflicting story.
According to Papias, Judas did not die by hanging but lived on. However, in our present book of Matthew, Judas hanged himself (Matt. 27:5). Given Papias's view of Matthew's Gospel as an eyewitness authority on Jesus and his contemporaries, why did he not accept its accounts of Judas's death?


Regarding the Gospel of Mark, Papias claimed that Mark, who hadn't personally known Jesus, wrote based on Peter's teachings. Even though this is what he heard himself from the Presbyters, that's, the TRADITION been passed on.
According to Eusebius, Papias wrote as follows:
"But now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words:
"This also the presbyter used to say: "Mark, indeed, who became the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, as far as he remembered them, the things said or done by the Lord, but not however in order." For he [Mark] had neither heard the Lord nor been his personal follower, but at a later stage, as I said, he had followed Peter"

Papais claimed that Mark carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter, This assertion is debated among scholars due to Mark's limited knowledge of Jesus compared to his association with Peter, some of Peter's stories are in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.
The short ending of the Gospel of Mark, which is widely accepted in scholarly circles, does not include an account of the resurrection appearances of Jesus.
if Mark indeed recorded the teachings of Peter, it seems inconsistent with what is known about Peter's preaching in other early Christian writings, such as Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 15. Acts 2 records Peter's speech at Pentecost, which focused on the resurrection, and 1 Corinthians 15 emphasizes the significance of Christ's resurrection appearances to Peter as a foundational belief in the early Church.

Although, Papias's statement about the origins of Matthew and Mark isn't highly regarded by modern scholars, and even Eusebius had a low opinion of Papias's intelligence.

Notwithstanding, Papias's insights are valuable. The Nag Hammadi collection consists of Gnostic works that focus on the sayings (Logia) of Jesus rather than narrative accounts.
The most prominent among them are the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Philip and in our new testament I'll include the Book of Revelation (Unveiling).
Although we have subtle logia/sayings in the Canonical gospel known as the "7 sayings," one of these sayings are in Aramaic. This connection to Aramaic leads us to the logia that Papais talked about being written in Aramaic. In Mark 15:34, we find: 'And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?

Now, these 7 sayings in the Canonical Gospels are attributed to "the disciple whom Jesus loved", as stated in John 21:24. He was the one taking notes of what Jesus was saying while He was dying and the activities going on around Him, which is mentioned in John 19:25-30. This person is none other than Judas Iscariot.
https://www.nairaland.com/7888378/other-disciple-whom-jesus-loved


The synoptic Gospels we have now (Mark, Matthew, Luke) share similar content and order. They were originally anonymous, and their titles and authors were assigned by early church fathers, led by Irenaeus. Scholars agree that Mark was likely the first Gospel, with Matthew borrowing heavily from it(80%), and Luke also using Mark as a source(50%).

"Until around 150 CE, Christians could produce writings either anonymously or pseudonymously, meaning they used the name of some acknowledged important biblical or apostolic figure. This practice was popular and accepted at that time."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/New-Testament-canon-texts-and-versions


The Logia books are associated with Gnostics, who were referred to as Nazarenes or Mandaeans. Early church fathers considered them heretics. The Gnostic books we have now are dated to a later period, but they may have had the original material.

Epiphanius in 370 CE mentioned that the Nazarenes had a complete Gospel according to Matthew in Hebrew.
Eusebius noted that the term "Nazarenes" was formerly used for Christians

Acts 24:5
We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.

St Jerome also refers to it in his commentary on Isaiah, speaking of the Jews, he says: “Thrice every day, in all the synagogues,
They curse the word Christian under the name of the Nazarenes.”

Nazarene in Aramaic is Nasraya (ܕܢܨܪܝܐ). Nasrani is used in the Quran for Christians...

in how many languages did pilate write "king of the Jews"?
And why did he do it?

SIRTee15:
What's the lingua Franca in the Roman empire during 1st century AD?

Latin was the everyday language of the roman military as well as all the government offices. A roman stationed in Palestine would attempt to learn some hebrew and Aramaic since these was the languages in everyday life in that part of the world then.

SIRTee15:
When Jesus spoke to the Roman centurion he healed his servant, in what language did they communicate?

in how many languages did pilate write "king of the Jews"?
And why did he do it?

Think, how will Roman Centurion communicate in a region full of Aramaic speaking people?

SIRTee15:
When Jesus spoke to Pontus pilate, what language did he speak?

Aramaic, in how many languages did pilate write "king of the Jews"?
And why did he do it?

The crowd were shouting release "Barabbas", bar abbas, that's Aramaic meaning son of the Father.

SIRTee15:
Olodo. U can't even interpret sentences properly.
I mean people gathered talking and analysing mathematics. Then u arrive and start talking about religious heresy.
How this mathematics and religious heresy relates?

That's how u sound here, the reason u so annoying.

Even this sentence, u thought I was talking about heresy in the bible.

For someone who claim he's atheist, ur obsession with Christianity is alarming. U can't get your head round anything else apart from Christianity, u see it everywhere.

you are the one that's an illiterate, your analogy of mathematics and heresy is wrong, because first off you lack what "heresy" means.
Mathematics don't work on dogma, there's no authority that decides beliefs or doctrine in the field of math.

If not that you are dumb, where in the new testament did Jesus speak "Greek"?
Does that not mean most of his audience and discples spoke the common language then, ask yourself, how come NONE of the new testament books was written in the common language among them?

Kingsnairaland:
Once I finish that guy's verse I will get to your point but list the chapters and verse that shows Saul and Moses their salvation was taken from them.

Let's first start with what you understand as salvation, compared to what Old testament means by it.

Kingsnairaland:
Aemmyjah

Take time to read them and understand you can never lose your salvation

Anything that can be given to you, can be taken.
I use Adam and eve as example yesterday, we still have saul and Moses.

Mhizzard:
.for the debt,even Nigeria is owning.

But if you had 3 hours to live, will you say this?

SIRTee15:
“I have much more to tell you but you cannot bear it now. Yet when that one I have spoken to you about comes—the Spirit of truth—he will guide you into everything that is true.

Who is the he?

John 16:13–14: “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak from himself; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.”

Revelation 1:1-- The Revelation Unveiling of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

Mhizzard:
Ask for forgiveness,settle all the beef i have with someone,the last but not the least i will try to get my debt pay off

So why not just go ahead and do this, so many people has died 3 hours ago, so many will in the next 3 hours.

Pure Silence.

Aemmyjah:
Is Mythical revelation or the original one?
You just want to argue
You are not worth my time for tonight
If it's not on Exile in Patmos
You'll be arguing on the original writer of Revelation citing sources from critics
Can you see you have no use on the forum
Na to just read news u suppose do
Abeg shift

The "revelation" there is not the one you are accustomed to, it correctly means "Unveiling".
And the writer also told you that whatever he was talking about was going to happen soon...

The book opens in Rev. 1:1 by stating the time and the purpose:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:" (KJV)

The book closes in Rev. 22 by stating the time of His coming:

" And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done."

Every word of Revelation from the first to the last, from Chap. 1 through Chap. 22 was to happen quickly and was "at hand" during the first century A.D. All of it was going to happen "shortly" for them.

Aemmyjah:
I made references to ancient writers, modern Scholars, Major Bible commentators, even chatgpt confirms Patmos as I mentioned and the timing of the writing of the book of Revelation around 96CE.
Don't you have any influence or relevance outside religious threads?

Mention one of those references that provided evidence that Patmos was used as an exile...
If you read revelation 1:9, notice the "Dia". The writer was not there on an exile but a reason.

Aemmyjah:
Uu

Yahweh worshipper why all this epistle?
The correct title of that book is "The revelation of Jesus Christ" and it was written by the disciple whom Jesus loved, Judas.

Aemmyjah:
1. We can calculate dates, timeline of events and others stuff that are not specifically mentioned in the Bible by means of chronology history, etc. History says that Patmos was a desolate island and a Roman Penal Colony for prisoners. Further research mentions that it was one of the 3 islands were people are banished to or exiled. It also adds that the punishment of banishment applies to those 'guilty' for deeds regarding to worship... I mentioned history from both pagan and Christians , I mention from renowned Scholars and others. You say he wrote in around 70CE and he was there for a visit or to preach... Without dropping one evidence

Any link to this.

SIRTee15:
The 3 gospels were made anonymous by who?
The early church knew the writers of the gospel, this wasn't disputed until modern scholars came up until their unanimous claim.
.

There were hundreds of books written anonymously, they only chose the one they want and put an author's name to it.
Before Iranueus that named the author's of the book, weren't people using the books?
If they were already using it, what was the need to put an author's name on it?

Only an illiterate will read the synoptic gospels and not see that one person copied another.

Kingsnairaland:
If God cursed them they will have no hope and we too will have no hope.

Is the ground, "hopeless" or is the snake "hopeless".
I don't understand

Kingsnairaland:
Killing the animal was to cover their sin and for them not to die

So when you "sin", it affects your salvation?

Kingsnairaland:
God already declared the day you eat you will die

So they eat it and brought sin to the whole world and the innocent animal died instead of them

Because some thing must die that day if not God word will be broken so God gave them temporary life span when that animal died and that was a type of Jesus

Revelation said Jesus was slain from the or before the foundation foundation of the world..

So they lost the privilege and salvation not to die after they ate it?