How did early Christians developing trinitarian theology reconcile Luke 22:42, in which Jesus makes a clear distinction between his own will and that of the Father?
I don't mean this from any kind of "gotcha" standpoint, I mean, like, how did it work? Are there any written records of early treatment of this moment in the patristic fathers and so forth?
In the New Testament "Πνεῦμα" is used in the context of "the Holy Spirit," the malevolent/unclean spirits that Jesus casts out, and in the (presumably benevolent) spirit that John of Patmos finds himself in at the beginning of Revelation. Elsewhere the disciples are given the authority to cast out "δαιμόνια," and in yet a third case the disciples mistake(?) the risen Jesus for a "φάντασμά".
What were the differences between these three categories of supernatural being? Are these categories Christian only/developed by the New Testament authors, or are they referring to aspects of Jewish culture/folklore/spirituality which would have been familiar to everyday Judeans and Galileans in the time of Jesus?
Hi all,
I"m looking for a book analogous in scale, scope, and focus to Mary Beard's _SPQR_ but for Classical Greece (loosely defined; would maybe prefer one that carries the Greek story from at least Archaic times through Roman conquest and rule).
Thanks for the help!
This is just an amateur spitballing, so pardon me if I’m off base, but I do wonder if those scholars who claim that the John author(s) knew the Synoptics have grappled with this:
If we read John with knowledge of the Synoptics (to include Acts), then it’s pretty strongly indicated that the Beloved Disciple is John the son of Zebedee (one of Jesus’s inner circle, not Peter, probably not James since he died young).
But if we read John without reference to the Synoptics, signs point to Lazarus (explicitly described as “the one whom you love”; the BD doesn’t start getting referred to until his resuscitation, some hints that people thought the BD might be immortal, which is something one might think about someone raised from the dead).
Early Christians, familiar with the Synoptics, seem to have concluded fairly early that the BD was John son of Zebedee. But was the what the Johannine author(s) actually intended? Is this a solveable problem?
It is a theme common to both Mark (and therefore the other synoptics) and John that the disciples very often do not understand what Jesus is saying to them, even when he speaks in what appears to be very plain language.
Why would the Evangelists describe the founding generation of their religion in what appears to be an unflattering light? Or is it possible that they are recording something historical--that people remember the disciples not understanding? if that's the case...why did they follow him? Why would they follow someone whose message they didn't comprehend?
Speaking of apologetics, I apologize if this post is unclear or insufficiently on-topic or both.
I have frequently seen apologists say something along the lines that Mark "records accurately, but not necessarily in order." I don't *think* I have ever seen this said by secular/non-apologetic scholars of the Bible, though I might have just missed it.
What events appear to be "out of order" in Mark and what do apologists think the "real" order was? Why do they think this?
In Mark, at least, the first four disciples are announced as two pairs: Simon and and Andrew; James and John. Why are only Simon, James, and John shown as present at the Transfiguration? Furthermore, is this special status for the inner three believed to be Markan invention or inherited tradition? If it's Markan invention, was there some theological purpose to it? If inherited, is it possible that there was something about the historical Andrew that made him less favored than his brother and the sons of Zebedee by Jesus?