aa5874

The historical Jesus makes no sense.

If an human is placed in gMark, or any book of the NT, the human Jesus becomes absurd. He has no news for the Jews, but false promises, who died as a blasphemer and his body cannot be accounted for.

And further, if Jesus was actually known to be a man during the days of Tiberius, then the Jesus story as we have them now is total fiction.

dog-on

Sure, it's just that taking them as we have them now *** , we cannot ignore the verse where Paul states, quite clearly, that he received his information from a direct revelation, not from man or by man, but from a divine being named Jesus Christ.

In other words, he made it up.

Unless, of course, you would like to present some evidence for this revelation being anything else but made up.

Toto

No it's not! You can see how it has happened with modern figures such as William Tell and Nedd Ludd.

You are just making an argument from personal incredulity here.

"Mythicized some" is not the same as the entire history being replaced with mythical elements.

How about Moses? Romulus or Remus? William Tell?

You have been asking questions but you seem to refuse to understand the answers. You just keep repeating that your own hypothesis is the only reasonable possibility.

Specifically, everyone else in this thread whose motives you have impugned.

Elijah

But I’m not sure you can show either of those figures actually lack a historical core.
I call it using reason.
There isn’t an entire history replaced with mythical elements. There is hardly any history to him at all.
What about them? Do you have evidence there wasn’t a historical core to them?
What am I not understanding?
Especially them.

dog-on

My "theory" is that Paul made up a revelation about and Mark wrote a fictional biography for, a god.

Simple.

My theory avoids these issues. Nice, clean and, of course, based on the evidence at hand, that I am aware of.

Quite familiar, but not really relevant to the mechanics.

My "theory" doesn't need such conjecture to be valid.

Are you questioning whether or not Gospel Mark actually exists? I am quite sure, it exists, that it is highly fictitious and that the author does not give any indication as to his particular motive.

It's real simple and based, completely, on the available evidence. You know, Lord Occam and such.

I can answer any questions relevant to my "theory".

Here are a few examples:

What are the earliest Christian writings, per the current scholarly consensus?

Answer: The genuine Pauline Epistles.

What does Paul claim as his source for his information?

Answer: Divine Revelation.

What is the earliest Gospel, per scholarly consensus?

Answer: The Gospel of Mark.

What is the genre of the Mark's Gospel?

Answer: Unknown, though it contains a mixture of plain fiction and midrashic materials.

Does "Mark" give any indication of his intent?

Answer: No.

Does it seem likely that the subsequent Gospel writers used Mark as the basis of their stories?

Answer: Indeed it does.


There, now you should be able to understand my "theory".

Toto

Then research it yourself.
I see the problem. You need more practice at what reason actually involves.



Trust me. You don't have a clue. You don't understand what anyone else here is saying, and your responses are a waste of everyone's time.

Elijah

Thanks for the help.

Toto

I have no idea what your educational level is, or what you want to learn. You could start by background reading in historiography; if you ask, you could get suggestions. But just repeating that you are right and everyone else is wrong is going nowhere.

Elijah

I'm not looking for a reading recommendation, thanks. I just see that and every time someone says to read a book as just trying to distract the conversation from the posters inability to answer the questions.

I'm looking to hear a coherent theory that explains the origin of the myth and how it was confused for history. I didn't graduate high school so try not to use too many big words.

Toto

But since you don't have enough background in myth or history or historical theories, you can't identify a coherent theory. You can't expect every poster here to bring you up to speed on what you are missing - you have to put in some effort yourself.