starling

No, I don't rant about that sort of thing. Just found a cool argument against Christianity as a moral institution, that was based on what AFAIK are historical arguments. A fun and chilling read, and some of the most intriguing stuff they won't print in your school's history books.

Vinnie

The author of that site dates Mark to 140! :down: :down: :down:

God the level of scholarship on that site is horrible...

Likewise, the dating of Papias to 130 is off. Papias dates to about 100. He attests to a written Gospel much like Mark (IMNSCO Mark).'

Nazareth didn't exist :yawn:


Jesus was originally a sun god?



I'll stick with reading credentialed scholars....

Vinnie

lenrek

Well... At least is a fun read...

Magdlyn

His Dad was a fire god assoc with volcanoes and burning bushes, fire falling from heaven, pillars of fire. As far as I have read, the big daddy gods of many cultures are assoc with sky, sun, fire and mountains.

J's disciples ask him if they should call fire down upon the head of an unauthorized prophet (as in the Elijah story).

Why does this fire god idea seem weird to you? What is the "Light of the World" except the sun?

DaninGraniteCity

What else is there that is wrong with this site?

Ted Hoffman

Uh, there is nothing particularly wrong with this. Unless you want to demonstrate how you arrive at a terminus ad quem for the dating of Mark?

Papias is not reliable. His claims are worthless. As such, we cannot use his claims to date it.

To summarize:
If Papias posessed documents containing the sayings and deeds of Jesus as recorded by Jesus' followers, as papias claimed, Papias would not have disparaged the written documents in favour of an oral tradition.

Papias states that Mark did not write an ordered recollection of the Lord's sayings. The Gospel of Mark is orderly and Chronological and not a loosely and unordered collection of sayings therefore its very unlikely that whatever documents Papias had included a proto_Mark.

It is impossible that Papias had in his posessions early versions of the Gospels for not only does Papias' own language, as quoted by Eusebius rule this out, not a single one of the fragments includes any saying from the canonical Gospels. This is astonishing and casts a shadow of doubt over whether Papias actually had canon material relating the life and deeds of Jesus.

If Eusebius had Papias' work, he would have highlighted a saying and Philipe of Side would have hardly limited themselves to the ridiculous and repugnant things that Papias had to say.

W. R. Schoedel in Apostolic Fathers, Vol 5, p.106, states that the style of the quote of Papias about Mark in "the rhetorical balance of the lines", is the same as the prologue which Eusebius quotes earlier. Schoedel notes: "This means that Papias has reworked whatever he received from 'the elderd' and its therefore impossible to distinguish Papias from his source at this point".

On this, I am with you.

I will stick with the evidence.

Many things.

GakuseiDon

Yet Papias himself does say this. He says he preferred to hear the living voice: "For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains". It is easy to understand why someone might prefer to hear something from someone rather than read it. Hearing a person gives some kind of validation of the words based on the perceived character of the speaker.

How do you know that the Gospel of Mark is orderly and chronological? What do you compare it against to establish this? There are few indicators in Mark, other than "after this" or "the next day". These appear to be devices to link passages, rather than actual chronological indicators.

He produced a 5 volume collection of Jesus's sayings. We only have a few fragments of Papias's writings, as quoted by others later on. Not so astonishing AFAICS.

Eusebius wrote to disparage Papias's work. He didn't have a high opinion of Papias. What saying should Eusebius have highlighted?

Ted Hoffman

The "voice which yet lives and remains" being what voice?

Paul didn't think so - thats why he relied on scriptures rather than other people. Neither do I.
It starts from the beginning of Jesus' ministry, to the end. From the hiddenness of the messianic secret, to its revelation.
Vinnie wrote:
Plus, "a 5 volume collection of Jesus's sayings" is not consistent with "only a few fragments of Papias writings"

One of those sayings you claim Papias had. Why did Eusebius disparage Papias' work? (oh, now its "papias' [own] work" - not "a 5 volume collection of Jesus's sayings"??

Toto

Discussion of Nazareth split off here

Amaleq13

Not astonishing? Are you kidding? The notion that a 5 volume collection of Jesus' sayings obtained from disciples of the Disciples or disciples of disciples of the Disciples was not carefully preserved by the Church is absolutely and entirely astonishing.