Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-01-2012, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

Mark 14:61-63 (ESV):

Why the quote? Why the ESV?

Quote:

Presumably the blasphemy is that Jesus has arrogated to himself the title of the Christ, which technically according to Jewish Law would not have been blasphemy.

Self-contradictory nonsense.

Why did the Sanhedrin, who knew all about the Law, accuse Jesus of blasphemy?

They didn't.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-01-2012, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

The statement made was that Mark was mendacious; to the point of criminality, of libel, in this case.

As far as I know, it was no crime to make up stuff about the Jews.

It is correct to say that Mark was making things up, though. His entire passion, basically from start to finish, is a pure fabrication photoshopped from OT material.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-01-2012, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

But they did not need an execution to get rid of Jesus. They were going to stone him theretofore; and they succeeded, with Stephen.

All the more proof that Mark's trial was a fiction.

Mark wanted to shift the blame for the crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews, so he made up a kangaroo trial and a bogus conviction. In reality, crucifixion was only imposed on slaves and for crimes against the Roman state, though.

The Sanhedrin never would have convicted anyone of blasphemy for saying they were the Messiah, and they had no position of leverage over Pilate to make him kill anyone he didn't want to kill. They were Pilate's lackeys, he wasn't theirs.

aa5874 · 05-01-2012, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

But they did not need an execution to get rid of Jesus. They were going to stone him theretofore; and they succeeded, with Stephen.

All the more proof that Mark's trial was a fiction.

Mark wanted to shift the blame for the crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews, so he made up a kangaroo trial and a bogus conviction. In reality, crucifixion was only imposed on slaves and for crimes against the Roman state, though.

The Sanhedrin never would have convicted anyone of blasphemy for saying they were the Messiah, and they had no position of leverage over Pilate to make him kill anyone he didn't want to kill. They were Pilate's lackeys, he wasn't theirs.

Well, that is PRECISELY what I want to hear from you-- The trial was made up. There is NOTHING supernatural in the trial but it is fiction.

Once you admit gMark wrote fiction then EVERY story in gMark MUST, MUST, MUST be corroborated by CREDIBLE sources of antiquity before it can be accepted.

There is NO Credible source of antiquity to corroborate gmark's Jesus and his supposed disciples

Horatio Parker · 05-01-2012, 09:55 AM

It does make sense if the point was to get Jesus off the hook for the destruction of the church during the 70 ad revolt.

If no one knew who he was, or listened to him, then he can't be responsible.

Another point is that if the author of gMark was influenced by Greek tragedy, he may have intentionally composed the story to be a mystery, to be provocative. Too strong a claim of divinity undermines the contemplative potential of the story.

That the later Gospel authors clarify and strengthen Jesus' divinity doesn't in itself prove the claim that gMark desired less for his Jesus.

But, to your argument, what sort of man wins converts, performs miracles, resurrects etc? If he's not a man of God, what is he? Does a Messiah have to be God incarnate, or could he be a virtuous man who ascends to place between man and God?

To my mind, the progress of the Gospels is not at all inconsistent with mythicism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

In the past I've been somewhat agnostic with regard to the existence of a historical Jesus, but the whole controversy aroused by Ehrman's book has led me to rethink the main problem I have with mythicism, which I think is something that is generally not addressed.

Historically, the Gospels paint a picture that is the opposite of what we would expect to see in mythicism. I refer specifically to the rising christology of the Gospels as they were written in chronological order (given the consensus dates of modern scholars). That is, roughly, Mark, Matthew, Luke and finally John. The meta-narrative of the Gospels is a very powerful one.

Mark: Jesus is the Son of Man, and the Christ - that is, he is not yet a literal "Son of God" - and he expels demons, heals people, performs miracles, preaches, is crucified and resurrected.
Matthew/Luke: Jesus is the Son of God, born of a virgin through a miracle. He performs additional miracles and has extensive appearances post-resurrection.
John: Jesus is explicitly God, does new miracles, has much different teachings and an elaborate career.

It makes no sense for a mythical invented god-man to progress from being Christ to being God - which, despite the assumptions of a thoroughly Christian culture, were in their time period completely mutually exclusive categories. Paul and Mark are consistent with Jesus as the Christ, that is as the messianic figure heralding the Kingdom of God, without requiring him to be God incarnate. This is more or less consistent with what Jews believed about the Christ (although the idea that he was crucified creates more problems for mythicism). The Christ was anointed by God, not God himself, and in point of fact if we are making someone out to be God, it doesn't make sense for him to be the Christ. Our picture by the time we get to John is of an incarnate God who is called the Christ, a rather incoherent position on its face.

To me, this is the main flaw with mythicist positions: for the most part it assumes that the character who was invented was Jesus Christ the god-man. But that's just not consistent with Mark, unless we read later Gospels back into it retroactively. Mark was not talking about God walking the earth but about the Son of Man, the Christ, who was crucified and resurrected, heralding the beginning of the end of the world. This is entirely consistent with a man who was turned into God, rather than a god-man who was historicized - and this process seems to require a man as its historical kernel.

graymouser · 05-01-2012, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

That the later Gospel authors clarify and strengthen Jesus' divinity doesn't in itself prove the claim that gMark desired less for his Jesus.

The basic premise of mythicism is that Jesus was invented explicitly as a god-man. Yet the Gospel of Mark - the one Gospel that, for mythicists, is where the "invention" took place - does not explicitly state this. My argument is that mythicists are actually reading John back into Mark and the Pauline epistles, which to my mind make more sense if they are about a crucified and resurrected messiah.

Quote:

But, to your argument, what sort of man wins converts, performs miracles, resurrects etc? If he's not a man of God, what is he? Does a Messiah have to be God incarnate, or could he be a virtuous man who ascends to place between man and God?

A messiah does not "have to" be God incarnate - in fact, the general assumption was that he would not be. It's something that no one would assume, since it's not part of the pre-Christian idea of the messiah at all. As I see it, the rising Christology, particularly by the time John was written, was the first place where the two were actually combined.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-01-2012, 11:36 AM

A "messiah," generally speaking is any anointed king or priest or anyone specially chosen by God. The Persian King Cyrus is called "anointed" in the OT.

The Davidic Messiah was just a human king, the heir to the throne of David, who would be a military hero, not a god, not a demigod and not a redeemer of sins.

aa5874 · 05-01-2012, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

What was the blasphemy that Mark recorded that Jesus was accused of?

Mark 14:61-63 (ESV):

Quote:

61 But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" 62 And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." 63 And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need? 64 You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.

I have to emphasize yet again - the "son of the Blessed" (if we assume that εὐλογητός is referring to God here) does not imply that Jesus would be the son of God in the sense of Matthew and Luke's literal "born of a virgin", or the idea that he was somehow himself God. He again emphasizes that he is the "Son of Man." Presumably the blasphemy is that Jesus has arrogated to himself the title of the Christ, which technically according to Jewish Law would not have been blasphemy. In order to actually commit blasphemy under the Law, Jesus would have had to curse the name of YHWH, which he does not do nor is accused of doing. You don't get "I am God" here unless you read the Trinity back into the document.

Your claim is erroneous because the author PRECISELY mentioned that the remark was considered Blasphemy immediately after the supposed Jesus made the claim.

It is NOT your imagination that counts it is the STORY as it is written.

In gMark, the supposed Jesus ADMITTED he was the Christ and the Son of the Blessed and it was considered Blasphemy and punishable by death.

How dare you claim otherwise when it is ACTUALLY in the story itself???

You cannot re-write the story because you don't like it.

aa5874 · 05-01-2012, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

A "messiah," generally speaking is any anointed king or priest or anyone specially chosen by God. The Persian King Cyrus is called "anointed" in the OT.

The Davidic Messiah was just a human king, the heir to the throne of David, who would be a military hero, not a god, not a demigod and not a redeemer of sins.

Whatever you think Messiah means is actually irrelevant.

We have the gMark story and as soon as the supposed Jesus ADMITTED he was the Christ and the Son of the Blessed he was deemed to be guilty of Blasphemy and worthy of death.

It is the story itself in gMark that matters NOT what you think Messiah means.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-01-2012, 11:59 AM

Mark does not think Jesus is God, he just doesn't know what "blasphemy" means.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-01-2012, 11:36 AM	#37
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	A "messiah," generally speaking is any anointed king or priest or anyone specially chosen by God. The Persian King Cyrus is called "anointed" in the OT. The Davidic Messiah was just a human king, the heir to the throne of David, who would be a military hero, not a god, not a demigod and not a redeemer of sins.

05-01-2012, 11:59 AM	#40
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Mark does not think Jesus is God, he just doesn't know what "blasphemy" means.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.