"The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Peter

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

"Simon" Didn't Saaay

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
The question here is who copied who. The candidates:

Gospel GMark GMatthew GLuke GJohn
First Mention 1
16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers.
4
18 And walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers.
4
38 And he rose up from the synagogue, and entered into the house of Simon. And Simon`s wife`s mother was holden with a great fever; and they besought him for her.
4
40 One of the two that heard John [speak], and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter`s brother.
41 He findeth first his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah (which is, being interpreted, Christ).
42 He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).
Commentary - - - -

When there is a difference in parallel verses we have 3 candidates for explanation of the difference in the offending Gospel:
  • 1) Evidence of copying.

    2) Evidence of original.

    3) Neither. Difference is either within range of author's style or unclear.
So, starting with GMark verses GMatthew, upon first supposed meeting of Jesus and Simon:
  • GMark = Simple, Simon is referred to as "Simon".

    verses

    GMatthew = Not so simple. Simon is referred to as "Simon, called [named] Peter".
Evidence of?


Joseph

Rock, Papal, Caesars

https://www.yadvashem.org/articles/gene ... ystok.html
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

"Simon" Didn't Saaay

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
The question here is who copied who. The candidates:

Gospel GMark GMatthew GLuke GJohn
First Mention 1
16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers.
4
18 And walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers.
4
38 And he rose up from the synagogue, and entered into the house of Simon. And Simon`s wife`s mother was holden with a great fever; and they besought him for her.
4
40 One of the two that heard John [speak], and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter`s brother.
41 He findeth first his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah (which is, being interpreted, Christ).
42 He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).
Commentary - We have a number of reasons here to favor "Matthew" copying "Mark":
1) The obvious one would be the possibility that GMatthew's first reference is "Simon who was called Peter" rather than just "Simon" because "Matthew" and some of his audience were familiar with GMark and therefore knew that subsequently in GMark Simon was called Peter. The defense is that "GMatthew" is just changing the timing of the author making the "Peter" identification to the reader.
2) The Hebrew root of "Simon" is 'hear" and this fits [understatement] well with the theme both have of Simon straightaway following Jesus upon hearing him[/understatement] and the thematically critical Parable of The Sower.
3) "Simon who was called Peter" is a bit awkward for an introduction. Why not just call him "Peter"?
4) Strange/bizarre/macabre that someone would be called "Peter" at the time with no explanation. At least until the next post I don't think that "Cephas" was a Semitic name at the time of the supposed setting or that it was even a Greek name.
5) And the cruncher as the Brits say, subsequent orthodox Christianity thought of this guy as "Peter".

As always, note that the above is just Literary Criticism and not Source Criticism so it does not prove, make probable or even make likely that GMark was first. It only favors it.
- -

When there is a difference in parallel verses we have 3 candidates for explanation of the difference in the offending Gospel:
  • 1) Evidence of copying.

    2) Evidence of original.

    3) Neither. Difference is either within range of author's style or unclear.
So, starting with GMark verses GMatthew, upon first supposed meeting of Jesus and Simon:
  • GMark = Simple, Simon is referred to as "Simon".

    verses

    GMatthew = Not so simple. Simon is referred to as "Simon, called [named] Peter".
Evidence of?


Joseph

Rock, Papal, Caesars

Skeptical Textual Criticism
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

"Simon" Didn't Saaay

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
The question here is who copied who. The candidates:

Gospel GMark GMatthew GLuke GJohn
First Mention 1
16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers.
4
18 And walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers.
4
38 And he rose up from the synagogue, and entered into the house of Simon. And Simon`s wife`s mother was holden with a great fever; and they besought him for her.
4
40 One of the two that heard John [speak], and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter`s brother.
41 He findeth first his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah (which is, being interpreted, Christ).
42 He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).
Commentary - We have a number of reasons here to favor "Matthew" copying "Mark":
1) The obvious one would be the possibility that GMatthew's first reference is "Simon who was called Peter" rather than just "Simon" because "Matthew" and some of his audience were familiar with GMark and therefore knew that subsequently in GMark Simon was called Peter. The defense is that "GMatthew" is just changing the timing of the author making the "Peter" identification to the reader.
2) The Hebrew root of "Simon" is 'hear" and this fits [understatement] well with the theme both have of Simon straightaway following Jesus upon hearing him[/understatement] and the thematically critical Parable of The Sower.
3) "Simon who was called Peter" is a bit awkward for an introduction. Why not just call him "Peter"?
4) Strange/bizarre/macabre that someone would be called "Peter" at the time with no explanation. At least until the next post I don't think that "Cephas" was a Semitic name at the time of the supposed setting or that it was even a Greek name.
5) And the cruncher as the Brits say, subsequent orthodox Christianity thought of this guy as "Peter".

As always, note that the above is just Literary Criticism and not Source Criticism so it does not prove, make probable or even make likely that GMark was first. It only favors it.
Note that this is the first mention of Simon and provides no explanation of who/what/will be Simon was/is/will be (how many Skeptics knew that?). Even better evidence than GMatthew that the author has read GMark and already knows who Simon is and assumes her audience does too. -

When there is a difference in parallel verses we have 3 candidates for explanation of the difference in the offending Gospel:
  • 1) Evidence of copying.

    2) Evidence of original.

    3) Neither. Difference is either within range of author's style or unclear.
So, starting with GMark verses GMatthew, upon first supposed meeting of Jesus and Simon:
  • GMark = Simple, Simon is referred to as "Simon".

    verses

    GMatthew = Not so simple. Simon is referred to as "Simon, called [named] Peter".
Evidence of?


Joseph

Rock, Papal, Caesars

Skeptical Textual Criticism
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

"Simon" Didn't Saaay

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
The question here is who copied who. The candidates:

Gospel GMark GMatthew GLuke GJohn
First Mention 1
16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers.
4
18 And walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers.
4
38 And he rose up from the synagogue, and entered into the house of Simon. And Simon`s wife`s mother was holden with a great fever; and they besought him for her.
1
40 One of the two that heard John [speak], and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter`s brother.
41 He findeth first his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah (which is, being interpreted, Christ).
42 He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).
Commentary - We have a number of reasons here to favor "Matthew" copying "Mark":
1) The obvious one would be the possibility that GMatthew's first reference is "Simon who was called Peter" rather than just "Simon" because "Matthew" and some of his audience were familiar with GMark and therefore knew that subsequently in GMark Simon was called Peter. The defense is that "GMatthew" is just changing the timing of the author making the "Peter" identification to the reader.
2) The Hebrew root of "Simon" is 'hear" and this fits [understatement] well with the theme both have of Simon straightaway following Jesus upon hearing him[/understatement] and the thematically critical Parable of The Sower.
3) "Simon who was called Peter" is a bit awkward for an introduction. Why not just call him "Peter"?
4) Strange/bizarre/macabre that someone would be called "Peter" at the time with no explanation. At least until the next post I don't think that "Cephas" was a Semitic name at the time of the supposed setting or that it was even a Greek name.
5) And the cruncher as the Brits say, subsequent orthodox Christianity thought of this guy as "Peter".

As always, note that the above is just Literary Criticism and not Source Criticism so it does not prove, make probable or even make likely that GMark was first. It only favors it.
Note that this is the first mention of Simon and provides no explanation of who/what/will be Simon was/is/will be (how many Skeptics knew that?). Even better evidence than GMatthew that the author has read GMark and already knows who Simon is and assumes her audience does too. Even better evidence that GJohn is later:
1) "Simon Peter`s brother" - The first identification of this character. It's not the name of the character in the Gospels, it's what the character was sometimes referred to by subsequent Christianity.
2) At this point in this Gospel Andrew is referenced as the brother of Simon Peter, but Simon Peter has not yet been identified.
3) Simon is clearly first in the narratives that largely discredit him. Now in a narrative that wants to credit in general and not discredit, he is no longer first.
4) "He findeth first his own brother Simon". Awkward. Duplicate identification and out of order use of "Simon".
5) GMark's unorthodox style is to never identify a character as "son of so and so (father)". GJohn converts here to orthodox identification "Thou art Simon the son of John".
6) Here, upon first looking at Simon, Jesus renames him "Cephas". Let the Reader understand the differences here. GMark, not identifying as son of a father, is stylish, but it is the author that is being stylish, not the character. Having Jesus change the name after first looking at Simon is less plausible than Jesus doing so later in the narrative. But it is the character that is being implausible, not the author.
7) The explanation for the name "Simon Peter" is given after the identification of Simon as Andrew's brother.
8) The character Jesus says "your name will be Cephas". It's the author who explains why. Reminds one of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHppmhyNx8M
9) "Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter)". Hmmm, would a reader/listener maybe wonder what language Jesus spoke?


When there is a difference in parallel verses we have 3 candidates for explanation of the difference in the offending Gospel:
  • 1) Evidence of copying.

    2) Evidence of original.

    3) Neither. Difference is either within range of author's style or unclear.
So, starting with GMark verses GMatthew, upon first supposed meeting of Jesus and Simon:
  • GMark = Simple, Simon is referred to as "Simon".

    verses

    GMatthew = Not so simple. Simon is referred to as "Simon, called [named] Peter".
Evidence of?


Joseph

Rock, Papal, Caesars

Skeptical Textual Criticism
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

"Simon" Didn't Saaay

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
The question here is who copied who. The candidates:

Gospel GMark GMatthew GLuke GJohn
First Mention 1
16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers.
4
18 And walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers.
4
38 And he rose up from the synagogue, and entered into the house of Simon. And Simon`s wife`s mother was holden with a great fever; and they besought him for her.
1
40 One of the two that heard John [speak], and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter`s brother.
41 He findeth first his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah (which is, being interpreted, Christ).
42 He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).
Commentary - We have a number of reasons here to favor "Matthew" copying "Mark":
1) The obvious one would be the possibility that GMatthew's first reference is "Simon who was called Peter" rather than just "Simon" because "Matthew" and some of his audience were familiar with GMark and therefore knew that subsequently in GMark Simon was called Peter. The defense is that "GMatthew" is just changing the timing of the author making the "Peter" identification to the reader.
2) The Hebrew root of "Simon" is 'hear" and this fits [understatement] well with the theme both have of Simon straightaway following Jesus upon hearing him[/understatement] and the thematically critical Parable of The Sower.
3) "Simon who was called Peter" is a bit awkward for an introduction. Why not just call him "Peter"?
4) Strange/bizarre/macabre that someone would be called "Peter" at the time with no explanation. At least until the next post I don't think that "Cephas" was a Semitic name at the time of the supposed setting or that it was even a Greek name.
5) And the cruncher as the Brits say, subsequent orthodox Christianity thought of this guy as "Peter".

As always, note that the above is just Literary Criticism and not Source Criticism so it does not prove, make probable or even make likely that GMark was first. It only favors it.
Note that this is the first mention of Simon and provides no explanation of who/what/will be Simon was/is/will be (how many Skeptics knew that?). Even better evidence than GMatthew that the author has read GMark and already knows who Simon is and assumes her audience does too. Even better evidence that GJohn is later:
1) "Simon Peter`s brother" - The first identification of this character. It's not the name of the character in the Gospels, it's what the character was sometimes referred to by subsequent Christianity.
2) At this point in this Gospel Andrew is referenced as the brother of Simon Peter, but Simon Peter has not yet been identified.
3) Simon is clearly first in the narratives that largely discredit him. Now in a narrative that wants to credit in general and not discredit, he is no longer first.
4) "He findeth first his own brother Simon". Awkward. Duplicate identification and out of order use of "Simon".
5) GMark's unorthodox style is to never identify a character as "son of so and so (father)". GJohn converts here to orthodox identification "Thou art Simon the son of John".
6) Here, upon first looking at Simon, Jesus renames him "Cephas". Let the Reader understand the differences here. GMark, not identifying as son of a father, is stylish, but it is the author that is being stylish, not the character. Having Jesus change the name after first looking at Simon is less plausible than Jesus doing so later in the narrative. But it is the character that is being implausible, not the author.
7) The explanation for the name "Simon Peter" is given after the identification of Simon as Andrew's brother.
8) The character Jesus says "your name will be Cephas". It's the author who explains why. Reminds one of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHppmhyNx8M
9) "Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter)". Hmmm, would a reader/listener maybe wonder what language Jesus spoke?
Second Mention
1:29 And straightway, when they were come out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.
8
14 And when Jesus was come into Peter`s house, he saw his wife`s mother lying sick of a fever.
5
3 And he entered into one of the boats, which was Simon`s, and asked him to put out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the multitudes out of the boat.
6
8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter`s brother, saith unto him,


When there is a difference in parallel verses we have 3 candidates for explanation of the difference in the offending Gospel:
  • 1) Evidence of copying.

    2) Evidence of original.

    3) Neither. Difference is either within range of author's style or unclear.
So, starting with GMark verses GMatthew, upon first supposed meeting of Jesus and Simon:
  • GMark = Simple, Simon is referred to as "Simon".

    verses

    GMatthew = Not so simple. Simon is referred to as "Simon, called [named] Peter".
Evidence of?


Joseph

Rock, Papal, Caesars

Skeptical Textual Criticism
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Peter Principle

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV9SDUMTYH4

JW:
The path of the name of the Simon/Peter/Simon character in GMark:

Verse Name Reason for Name
1:16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers.
17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.
Simon The name "Simon" means "to hear" in Hebrew. The use hear fits "Mark's" contrived use of names based on meaning and connection to the narrative, hear Jesus' Parable of the Sower. Some hear the Word and immediately follow.
3:16 and Simon he surnamed Peter;
Peter The name is changed after Jesus gets to know him and after the "Rocky"/Petros part of The Parable of the Sower. To me this is consistent with the rest of GMark and especially fits Markan contrived names as as near as I can tell "Petros" was not even a name at the supposed time.
14:37 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest thou not watch one hour?
Simon After failing to "watch", the character's name reverts back to the original name, "Simon".

Note that there is no implication from the above that "Mark" and his intended audience already knew something from any other known Gospel. Contrast this with all other known Gospels have implications that the author and intended audience already knew GMark.


Joseph

Irony -a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.

The New Porphyry
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

"Mark's" Key Word Textual Markers. You're Fired!

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk37g0JWDyk


Verse Commentary
9
22 And oft-times it hath cast him both into the fire and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us.
-
43 And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire.
-
44 [where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.]
-
45 And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life halt, rather than having thy two feet to be cast into hell.
46 [where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.]
-
47 And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, cast it out: it is good for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell;
48 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
-
9:49 For every one shall be salted with fire.
-
14:54 And Peter had followed him afar off, even within, into the court of the high priest; and he was sitting with the officers, and warming himself in the light [of the fire].
-

JW:
An individual word or a phrase can be used as a Textual Marker either by repetition, to emphasize a theme, or by limitation, to make a connection. The above are all the uses of "fire" except possibly the famous Textual Criticism question of 1:8. With a setting of religion, this looks like a limitation here. GMatthew and Gluke make use of "fire" in other contexts.

I find it interesting here that after the over cooked usage and connection of fire to hell, in the only other use of "fire" (by implication) in this Gospel, Peter is the one identified as being warmed by it.


Joseph

"Fire is good. Fire is your friend." - Jesus Hackman

Skeptical Textual Criticism
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

"Mark's" Key Word Textual Markers. Dead Men Don't Tell Resurrection Tales

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
The Word El. See how many of the same words you can find in the two stories?

Verse Physical Death Spiritual Death
5
35 While he yet spake, they come from the ruler of the synagogue`s [house] saying, Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Teacher any further?
36 But Jesus, not heeding the word spoken, saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Fear not, only believe.
37 And he suffered no man to follow with him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James.
38 And they come to the house of the ruler of the synagogue; and he beholdeth a tumult, and [many] weeping and wailing greatly.
39 And when he was entered in, he saith unto them, Why make ye a tumult, and weep? the child is not dead, but sleepeth.
40 And they laughed him to scorn. But he, having put them all forth, taketh the father of the child and her mother and them that were with him, and goeth in where the child was.
41 And taking the child by the hand, he saith unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, Arise.
42 And straightway the damsel rose up, and walked; for she was twelve years old. And they were amazed straightway with a great amazement.
43 And he charged them much that no man should know this: and he commanded that [something] should be given her to eat.
Yes No
14
37 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest thou not watch one hour?
38 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
39 And again he went away, and prayed, saying the same words.
40 And again he came, and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they knew not what to answer him.
41 And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough; the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
42 Arise, let us be going: behold, he that betrayeth me is at hand.
43 And straightway, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
...
66 And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest;
67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, [even] Jesus.
68 But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, This is [one] of them.
70 But he again denied it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, of a truth thou art [one] of them; for thou art a Galilaean.
71 But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak.
72 And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
No Yes

These are the only uses of "weeping" by the author. The offending word is a popular word in a religious context and used far more by all other Gospellers. This suggests that the restricted use here is contrived and intended to connect the stories:

Peter follows Jesus and comes before a Jewish leader and a crowd of witnesses. The issue is arising from sleeping verses death and physical verses spiritual.

For those who need points sharply explained, at the (his) end Peter understands that his lack of faith in Jesus' words ("anyone who denies me") will save his physical life but end his spiritual life (the Satan could only have come out of him through prayer at Gethsemane). Simon will now ironically follow Jesus' command in the connected story not to tell any man about Jesus' power over death. Thus 16:8 as ending fits the general theme of GMark and is therefore the best evidence for 16:8.

Sure, if you are(were) a believing Christian it's depressing to find out that the original Gospel narrative was clear that Peter did not believe Jesus was resurrected but, just like Coptics have the best dope, Jewish counter-missionaries have the best apologies. Jesus says not to tell any man. But women were told. So you just need to have faith to believe it (rather than supposed named historical witness). Just like the original Christian author, Paul, intended.

Bonus material for Solo = What famous Christian author (actually the only one before Gmark) famously wrote about sleeping verses death diechotomy?



Joseph

Marko. Paulo.

Skeptical Textual Criticism
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Black Mirror

Post by JoeWallack »

Demon 53

simon name meaning hebrew
Simon is a given name, from Hebrew שִׁמְעוֹן Šimʻôn, meaning "listen" or "hearing".
4
5 And other fell on the rocky [ground], where it had not much earth; and straightway it sprang up, because it had no deepness of earth:
6 and when the sun was risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
7 And other fell among the thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.
8 And others fell into the good ground, and yielded fruit, growing up and increasing; and brought forth, thirtyfold, and sixtyfold, and a hundredfold.
9 And he said, Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parables.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables:
12 that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them.
13 And he saith unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how shall ye know all the parables?
14 The sower soweth the word.
15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; and when they have heard, straightway cometh Satan, and taketh away the word which hath been sown in them.
16 And these in like manner are they that are sown upon the rocky [places], who, when they have heard the word, straightway receive it with joy;
17 and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway they stumble.
18 And others are they that are sown among the thorns; these are they that have heard the word,
19 and the cares of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.
20 And those are they that were sown upon the good ground; such as hear the word, and accept it, and bear fruit, thirtyfold, and sixtyfold, and a hundredfold.
21 And he said unto them, Is the lamp brought to be put under the bushel, or under the bed, [and] not to be put on the stand?
22 For there is nothing hid, save that it should be manifested; neither was [anything] made secret, but that it should come to light.
23 If any man hath ears to hear, let him hear.
24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete it shall be measured unto you; and more shall be given unto you.
25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath.
26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed upon the earth;
27 and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should spring up and grow, he knoweth not how.
28 The earth beareth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.
29 But when the fruit is ripe, straightway he putteth forth the sickle, because the harvest is come.
30 And he said, How shall we liken the kingdom of God? or in what parable shall we set it forth?
31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown upon the earth, though it be less than all the seeds that are upon the earth,
32 yet when it is sown, groweth up, and becometh greater than all the herbs, and putteth out great branches; so that the birds of the heaven can lodge under the shadow thereof.
33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it;
KK, this mirror enough for you.


Joseph

"“They say that Hitler killed the Jews for being Jews, and that Europe hated the Jews because they were Jews. Not true,” he averred. Europeans “fought against these people because of their role in society, which had to do with usury, money and so on.”
“Even Hitler,” he added, “said he fought the Jews because they were dealing with usury and money.” Yes, even for Hitler, “this was not about Semitism and anti-Semitism.” - Mahmoud Abbas, Official and Authorized leader of the Palestinians

The New Porphyry
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Dick Facebook

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLpfbcXTeo8

JW:

Verse Parallel Commentary
4:5 And other fell on the rocky [ground], where it had not much earth; and straightway it sprang up, because it had no deepness of earth:
4:6 and when the sun was risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
1:16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers.
1:17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.
1:18 And straightway they left the nets, and followed him.

3:16 and Simon he surnamed Peter;

14:50 And they all left him, and fled.

14:72 And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
The author has made the parallels pretty clear. For those who need points sharply explained "when the sun was risen" = "cock crows". The irony of course is the parable explained to the Disciples is about the Disciples.


Joseph

“The people of Gaza only decided to break the siege, the walls of the concentration camp, on Oct. 7, And yes, I was happy to see people breaking the siege and throwing down the shackles of their own land and walk free into their land that they were not allowed to walk in. And yes, the people of Gaza have the right to self-defense, have the right to defend themselves, and yes, Israel as an occupying power does not have that right to self-defense.” - Nihad Awad

The New Porphyry
Post Reply