Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hjalti · 06-17-2012, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, I will give you one such argument. Paul's epistle to the Galatians describes Paul's encounter with Peter and James in the Council of Jerusalem. In this letter, Paul writes of the crucifixion of Jesus (as in every letter), and he writes of a bitter theological dispute with Peter. No Christian would have reason to forge this letter, because they were interested in portraying Paul and Peter to be unified behind the same doctrines, as in the book of Acts. For this reason, scholars are unified on the point that Paul genuinely wrote the epistle to the Galatians. This letter necessarily predates the fall of Jerusalem, which means the Christian character of Jesus existed well before the popularity of Jesus ben Ananias.

Abe, are you really claiming that all Christians were interested in having Peter and Paul unified behind the same doctrine like in Acts? What's your evidence for this? Why wouldn't the Marcionites for example want to portray Paul as an opponent of Peter?

ApostateAbe · 06-17-2012, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

My claim is that Mark corrected for the embarrassment of the baptism account, much like Matthew, Luke and John. In Mark,

John is over-the-top subservient to Jesus
God speaks from the heavens during the baptism and chooses Jesus to be his son. God did not choose John.

The problem I have with this methodology is that you can almost take any story that has a very positive spin on Jesus and claim that the positive stuff about Jesus is an addition to a tradition that the author was embarassed about. E.g. take the example of the demons saying that Jesus was sent from god (or something like that), one can just as well say that those are additions to exorcisms that the author was embarassed about. :huh:

Why do you conclude that these are Markan additions to a pre-existing tradition that didn't have those elements?

Quote:

Richard Carrier missed those points, and he thinks Mark's account of the baptism is free of embarrassment. The objection is both implausible (if Matthew, Luke and John were embarrassed, it is much more likely that Mark would be, too) and seemingly ignorant of the contents of Mark's account (the subservience and the snubbing).

Well, Mark seems to have a different Christology than the other guys, so we really shouldn't expect him to be embarassed by the same things as the other guys. I mean, Matthew probably changed the "Nobody is good but god"-saying because he didn't like it, but Mark probably didn't have any problems with it. In Mark you just seem to have the guy Jesus going to a normal baptism, and when he gets a "clean slate" at the baptism, the holy ghost goes into him.

And the bigger problem here is of course that if we conclude that Mark didn't make it up, that it was just an earlier tradition, that doesn't make it historical. We know that later Christians often don't like earlier stuff, that doesn't mean that the earlier stuff is historical.

We know that the community of Mark was interested in portraying Jesus as better than everyone else, and we know that they competed with the cult of John the Baptist, which means we know they would be considerably bothered by the plain reality of the baptism. The account we have in Mark does seem to follow from that.

The explanation that the two elements I listed were added to the tradition of Mark to spin the story against JtB's favor is a plausible explanation, and it fits the pattern that we see in the other three gospels. It is not a rock-solid explanation, but it is the best explanation, requiring the least extra historical suppositions. We don't have to think that the communities of Mark somehow thought a lot differently about the baptism than the communities of Matthew, Luke and John. That would be an extraordinary and unnecessary claim. If they were embarrassed by the baptism, then how did it come about in Christian tradition? Given that JtB really was a baptizer, given that every religious teacher has a teacher, given that Jesus allegedly calls JtB the most righteous man on earth, given that the ministry of JtB precedes the ministry of Jesus in all accounts, it is most probable by far to explain it all with the point that JtB really did baptize Jesus. There is seemingly only one reason to consider any other historical explanation, and that is for whatever reason we don't want JtB to have baptized Jesus. We would rather pull some other explanation out of thin air.

ApostateAbe · 06-17-2012, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, I will give you one such argument. Paul's epistle to the Galatians describes Paul's encounter with Peter and James in the Council of Jerusalem. In this letter, Paul writes of the crucifixion of Jesus (as in every letter), and he writes of a bitter theological dispute with Peter. No Christian would have reason to forge this letter, because they were interested in portraying Paul and Peter to be unified behind the same doctrines, as in the book of Acts. For this reason, scholars are unified on the point that Paul genuinely wrote the epistle to the Galatians. This letter necessarily predates the fall of Jerusalem, which means the Christian character of Jesus existed well before the popularity of Jesus ben Ananias.

Abe, are you really claiming that all Christians were interested in having Peter and Paul unified behind the same doctrine like in Acts? What's your evidence for this? Why wouldn't the Marcionites for example want to portray Paul as an opponent of Peter?

The account in Acts is my evidence. It makes plausible sense, because both Peter and Paul were regarded as heroes by the Christian church. If you are going to make up a story about the apostles to reinforce your own doctrines, then it would be best to portray them as unified behind your own doctrines. If you have them disagreeing, then the reader is left to choose between one or the other. It makes almost no sense to portray them as divided.

Solo · 06-17-2012, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Or it may be that you misread Matthew's intent in loading Jesus on two donkeys. Matthew knew Mark, and he knew Mark was using Zechariah. It is also very probable that Matthew was familiar with the technique of parallelismus membrorum which is used in Zech 9:9. In short, the idea that Matthew somehow misunderstood the text in front of him is itself an admission of not being able to cope with the gospel's idiom.

Best,
Jiri

You think Matthew wrote it as a joke or something?

Hed was returning Mark's insults.

Best,
Jiri

ApostateAbe · 06-17-2012, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

You think Matthew wrote it as a joke or something?

Hed was returning Mark's insults.

Best,
Jiri

Hed?

aa5874 · 06-17-2012, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The account in Acts is my evidence. It makes plausible sense, because both Peter and Paul were regarded as heroes by the Christian church. If you are going to make up a story about the apostles to reinforce your own doctrines, then it would be best to portray them as unified behind your own doctrines. If you have them disagreeing, then the reader is left to choose between one or the other. It makes almost no sense to portray them as divided.

Well, at least you are honest enough to admit that you use known works of fiction for your Jesus story.

You seem to have NO idea that Acts of the Apostles is NOT even a 1st century composition and that the characters called Jesus and the disciples in Acts were inventions.

In Acts 1 it is claimed the disciples WITNESSED the resurrected Jesus and SAW him ascend in a cloud.

In Acts 26 the author claimed the Ascended Jesus spoke in the Hebrew tongue AFTER Saul was blinded by a bright light.

Acts of the Apostles CANNOT be accepted as history.

It is most Terrifying that you CONVENIENTLY accept Acts as history and Simultaneously REJECT it as Fiction.

outhouse · 06-17-2012, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

The problem I have with this methodology is that you can almost take any story that has a very positive spin on Jesus and claim that the positive stuff about Jesus is an addition to a tradition that the author was embarassed about. E.g. take the example of the demons saying that Jesus was sent from god (or something like that), one can just as well say that those are additions to exorcisms that the author was embarassed about. :huh:

Why do you conclude that these are Markan additions to a pre-existing tradition that didn't have those elements?

Well, Mark seems to have a different Christology than the other guys, so we really shouldn't expect him to be embarassed by the same things as the other guys. I mean, Matthew probably changed the "Nobody is good but god"-saying because he didn't like it, but Mark probably didn't have any problems with it. In Mark you just seem to have the guy Jesus going to a normal baptism, and when he gets a "clean slate" at the baptism, the holy ghost goes into him.

And the bigger problem here is of course that if we conclude that Mark didn't make it up, that it was just an earlier tradition, that doesn't make it historical. We know that later Christians often don't like earlier stuff, that doesn't mean that the earlier stuff is historical.

We know that the community of Mark was interested in portraying Jesus as better than everyone else, and we know that they competed with the cult of John the Baptist, which means we know they would be considerably bothered by the plain reality of the baptism. The account we have in Mark does seem to follow from that.

The explanation that the two elements I listed were added to the tradition of Mark to spin the story against JtB's favor is a plausible explanation, and it fits the pattern that we see in the other three gospels. It is not a rock-solid explanation, but it is the best explanation, requiring the least extra historical suppositions. We don't have to think that the communities of Mark somehow thought a lot differently about the baptism than the communities of Matthew, Luke and John. That would be an extraordinary and unnecessary claim. If they were embarrassed by the baptism, then how did it come about in Christian tradition? Given that JtB really was a baptizer, given that every religious teacher has a teacher, given that Jesus allegedly calls JtB the most righteous man on earth, given that the ministry of JtB precedes the ministry of Jesus in all accounts, it is most probable by far to explain it all with the point that JtB really did baptize Jesus. There is seemingly only one reason to consider any other historical explanation, and that is for whatever reason we don't want JtB to have baptized Jesus. We would rather pull some other explanation out of thin air.

absolutely

we see the embarrassment over JtB teaching jesus and baptising, then Markan authors doing the best they can to cover it up.

we see them having to hide a mortal man while creating the deity they chose

hjalti · 06-18-2012, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

We don't have to think that the communities of Mark somehow thought a lot differently about the baptism than the communities of Matthew, Luke and John. That would be an extraordinary and unnecessary claim.

Extraordinary? Is it an extraordinary claim that Mark had a different Christology than the other gospels? :huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If they were embarrassed by the baptism, then how did it come about in Christian tradition?

You don't know that those people were embarassed with that hypothetical bare account of the baptism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Given that JtB really was a baptizer, given that every religious teacher has a teacher, given that Jesus allegedly calls JtB the most righteous man on earth, given that the ministry of JtB precedes the ministry of Jesus in all accounts, it is most probable by far to explain it all with the point that JtB really did baptize Jesus.

Well, I don't think you have given any good reasons to prefer that explanation to it just being a myth or a legend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The account in Acts is my evidence. It makes plausible sense, because both Peter and Paul were regarded as heroes by the Christian church. If you are going to make up a story about the apostles to reinforce your own doctrines, then it would be best to portray them as unified behind your own doctrines. If you have them disagreeing, then the reader is left to choose between one or the other. It makes almost no sense to portray them as divided.

So the account in Acts is your evidence of what all Christians would do? Doesn't that seem a little bit simplistic to you?

And you say that "both Peter and Paul were regarded as heroes by the Christian church". I just mentioned the Marcionites in my last post. Did they consider Peter to be a "hero of the Christian church"? Do you think that jewish Christians considered Paul a "hero of the Christian church"?

ApostateAbe · 06-18-2012, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

We don't have to think that the communities of Mark somehow thought a lot differently about the baptism than the communities of Matthew, Luke and John. That would be an extraordinary and unnecessary claim.

Extraordinary? Is it an extraordinary claim that Mark had a different Christology than the other gospels? :huh:

Your argument is that Mark had a different Christology than the other gospels, therefore Mark thought differently about the baptism than the other gospels? Well, seemingly, Mark had about the same Christology as Matthew and Luke (Christ was a miraculous human being and prophet), and whatever differences in Christology would not be seemingly relevant. If you think Mark was adoptionist and Matthew and Luke were not (a mere speculation), then it fails to explain why a baptism by John the Baptist, of all possible things, would be chosen as the symbol of the adoption, especially given that the community of Mark were competitors with the cult of John the Baptist. It also fails to explain why JtB is quoted as saying, "I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals." The explanation is simply unlikely. We should not be settling on a hypothesis that demands that three closely-related gospels are drastically different in their fundamental thinking unless we have very good evidence for it.

Solo · 06-18-2012, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Hed was returning Mark's insults.

Best,
Jiri

Hed?

He

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.