george murphy wrote:
> 3) Having said that, it's clear that some of the material in the gospels is
> due to the reflections of the early church & the gospel writers, & this simply
> from the internal evidence. To take just one important example, the confession
> of Peter at Caesarea Phillippi. Mark's account gives the impression that Jesus
> rejected the title "Messiah" while in Matthew he praises Peter's attribution to
> him of this title as a gift of God. It can't be both ways. There are many
> other examples.
In Matthew, I read:
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[2] the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed
to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are
Peter,[3] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[4]
will not overcome it.[5] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;
whatever
you bind on earth will be[6] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth
will be[7] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that
he was the Christ.
In Mark, I read:
29"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Peter answered, "You are the Christ.[2] "
30Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.
Why do you get the impression that he rejected the title in Mark? (Matthew makes the
same comment about not telling anyone.) and Mark 14:61-63 does not sound like a
rejection of the tittle.
I agree that there some differences but don't see this one.
confused,
Walt
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 10 2002 - 01:40:05 EDT