Vinnie

And this is the only point you can possibly win of all the responses to your posts I offered thus far? You have responded to nothing else.

I meant the same thing. I use "Christian" and "Jesus followers" interchangeably. I may be anachronistic in this but it certainly does nothing to prove your point. Or then again, maybe I just don't put as much emphasis on titular reductionist fallacies like you.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I didn'ty see you complain to capnkirk (who betrays himself as a novice) who was ragging on Ted Weeden (bona fide scholar). Or when Vork dismissed Christian scholarship and so on.

Judge fairly or sit on the side lines and keep your fingers off your keyboard. Your primitive double standards might get you points with the choir but they are insulting to genuine free thinkers like myself.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Its funny how mythicists can never get the consensus right. Its ca. 70 C.E.

The earliest possible date for Mark is around the mid 60s.

Just like all scholars think Joseph was interpolated in both instances.

How do you novices even begin to think yop ucan critique scholars when most of you have no clue what they actually even believe?

Vinnie

Llyricist

Well sheee-it then Jebus really DID prophesy the destruction of the temple? You must be relying on some pretty faithful Christian scholars then.

Cut the arrogant bukllshit Vinnie, people know a hell of alot more than you give them credit for..... and so far ALL you have done is appeal to authority.... hell you haven't even presented any of THEIR arguments to me (just that list that didn't even address the objection I had to the "embarrassment criterea)..... just asserted that they believe this or that..... that is meaningless in debate... you are doing yourself NO service in anyone's eyes with your performance on this thread.

And you responded to Spenser's appeal to civilise your demeanor by hurling insults at him..... again, not a good showing.

Anyhow with regards to the dating...vis a vis Mark and Paul, I take it you are using the earliest possible date for Mark and the latest for Paul....leaving about 8 years right?..... But Paul was Teaching for several decades before he wrote so you gotta add them decades to your time frame if you are gonna be honest..... as well as allow for somewhat later dating of mark, which gives the possibility of even more decades...your argument loses alot of water when considered with any degree of fairness.

But no, with you Q is fact...Thomas predates them all (for sure) and so on and so on........ THAT is sloppy scholarship, regardless of how many Scholars agree with you.

And back to my objection to the embarrassment criterea, you haven't even TOUCHED the fact that it carries no weight against any ACTUAL MJ hypotheses. SO what of it? do you have any arguments (Edit: in support of the embarrasment criterea) that don't only address some Strawman MJ Hypothesis??

Vinnie

I find it amazing that you appear to be summing up Jewish messianic expectations of the firsty century by PROOF-TEXT HUNTING a servant song in Isaiah.

Many scholars believe we only find faint traces of a suffering Messiah or Davidic king to come in the OT. You have no exegesis of the passages. You discuss none of the problems or who the servant is and how this was traditioanlly interpreted. You discuss none of the pre-Christian messianic expectations among the Jews. You engaged in uncritical proof-text hunting. Is this supposed to demonstrate something?

Paul seems to have adhered to the collective interpretation of the "servant"and even thought of himself as the servant (see Acts 13:47, Gal 1:15; Rom 15:21.

Your abilities to objectively evaluate the evidence have obviously been blinded by your dealings with fudnamentalists and literalists as you are adopting their hermeneutics in your skepticism.

It was after his troubling death by crucifixion that Jesus' followers cast it in light of the OT. Not before.

Vinnie

Vinnie

""""""""Well sheee-it then Jebus really DID prophesy the destruction of the temple? You must be relying on some pretty faithful Christian scholars then.""""""""

Sure its possible for a guy to think the temple was corrupt and would be destroyed by God or by an outside army through God. Nothing requires supernatural knowledge here. Maybe Jesus had a distate for the temple as it was and "got lucky". Maybe his belief in an imminent end of the world or some new era entailed that the temple as it now was run would be destroyed?

There are also those who think that Jesus prophecy--even ifgranted--was not totally fufilled which adds another element to the debate.

"""""""And you responded to Spenser's appeal to civilise your demeanor by hurling insults at him..... again, not a good showing."""""""""

I don't like double standards.

""""""""Anyhow with regards to the dating...vis a vis Mark and Paul, I take it you are using the earliest possible date for Mark and the latest for Paul....leaving about 8 years right?"""""""""

No. Paul wrote several (7 we have) letters (48 to 62) over 15 or so years. Mark wrote sometime around 70 c.e. I make no judgement other than that. But by the time one collects and publishes Paul's letters and they are copied and sent to other churches (Assuming they were) we have to give appropriate time for development.

No it doesn't. I didn't have 8 years in mind. I had 20-30. Thats not a lot. I use a generation rule. At best Paul could have indirectly influenced some of Mark and overall, I do not think Paul was as important in the first century as he is to the Christian movement today. This is important.

Second, none of the details in Mark, save crucifixion can be derived from the kerygma as its found in Paul. In theory its possible for some of the preaching to have influence the author or Mark (even indirectly) but you have to show how Mark's crucifixion material is all depend on it. Because Paul is earlier does not mean he influences Mark. This only occurs when earlier material becomes popular and firmly embedded.

In my estiamtion Mark most likely used a passion narrative and embedded within Mark is a set of controversy stories which most likely originally ended with Jesus' death (See Sanders).

I am aware of no clear link or indirect link between the Markan and Pauline material. If you know of some then please state it.

Direct literary depdnence is ruled out. If you think Mark was indirectly dependent upon Paul then state the evidence. I see such evidence as entirely lacking and Mark obviously had access to a lot of different traditions if we read it critically and look for underlining sources of which there are many.

""""""""""But no, with you Q is fact...Thomas predates them all (for sure) and so on and so on........ THAT is sloppy scholarship, regardless of how many Scholars agree with you.""""""""""

Actually Thomas dates around the same time as Mark in my estimation and it is independent of the canonincals and it may have had two layers. I have lots of material on Thomas written.

There is double tradition material that consists mainly of sayings. Thus, there is a sayings source(s) behind this whether you accept Q or not.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

It is unfortunate for you that arrogant condescension does not constitute a rational argument. (P.S. At least some of us "novices" can spell. )

I'm pretty sure everybody who has been opposing your generally unsubstantiated assertions is aware that most scholars date the authorship of Mark to just after the fall of the Temple. They are probably also aware that this educated guess is based on apparent references to the aforementioned destruction combined with a rational disregard of the efficacy of prophetic utterances. Still, an educated guess is still a guess and I would hope that the intellectual honesty of our scholars would compel them to acknowledge that fact. The earliest certain quotations from the book are in the last two decades of the 2nd century but Justin Martyr seems to exhibit at least some knowledge of GMk a bit earlier. The best evidence for the existence of Mark in the 1st century is the use of it by the authors of Mt and Lk (assuming one accepts that hypothesis).

"...according to the two-source hypothesis both Matthew and Luke, written just before or shortly after the year 100CE, have used Mark's Gospel and have copied large portions of its text, albeit with numerous editorial alterations." Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, p.275

Is Koester a "novice", Vinnie?

Vinnie

Actually Koester is stating Matthew and Luke were written ca. 100 C.E. He notes that Mark must be dated considerably earlier than this.

At least you can spell though

Vinnie

rlogan

Dear, dear, dear:

Mark 14:
21: The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

24: And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
25: Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
27: And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.
28: But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.



Vinnie, this is just a sampling. All of the gospels are unanimous that the crucifixion is a requirement. It is the words of Jesus himself saying as it is "written".

Written where? On the wall of the urinal?

Now Peter K. and you seem to be making a point that I don't know how to interpret the Hebrew Bible.

Forgive me for not making it clear that it is the gospels (and other N.T. script) that use Hebrew Bible verses to "validate" Jesus as the Christ. If you guys want to argue with Jesus about his misinterpretation, well fine.

According to the record, Jesus told the disciples beforehand what was going to happen.

As written in the Hebrew Bible.

Q.E.D.

Vinnie

Rlogan,

From My Jesus FAQ:

Rebuttal: By the time of Mark any embarrassment regarding the crucifixion of Jesus may very well have been alleviated by how his death was spun and viewed in light of the Old Testament by Christians. Its the earlier Christians who would have found this concept difficult to cope with. Mark did not invent the idea of Jesus' crucifixion and this objection only has force if he/she did do so. This skandalon goes back much earlier than ca. 70 C.E.

The crucifixion of Jesus must have been embarrassing to early Christians. This is attested in the first stratum and failure to accept this is simply failing to appreciate the social context at the time. [see all the above quotes and note that Later skeptics still attacked Christianity over this but it must have eventually become common place in Christian circles. Look today at Christian ornaments worn around their necks!].

At any rate, Jesus' death "had to happen" because those who viewed him thought of him as God's agent and this the crucifixion "did happen". Naturally it must have been foreordained all along.

The connections to the OT RE JESUS the suffering Messiah are all very TENUOUS. The traditions runs in the opposite direction. The crucifixion was read back into the OT, not created out of it.

With this in mind all the apologetics that developed about Jesus's death needing to have happened and so on serve to show how troubling it initially was.

Vinnie