Freethought & Rationalism Archive

No Robots · 11-24-2008, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Stop projecting.

This is starting to sound like my first marriage.

bacht · 11-24-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

*If* Mark was intentional fiction, and if Mark was the source of Christianity, then I would say there is no historical core even if the Jesus character was loosely modeled after a historical person, because the story is not contingent on that person. Someone else could as easily have been picked in that case.

Are there qualified scholars arguing that Mark is intentional fiction, or that Mark was the originator of Christianity?

Here's R.G. Price, I don't know what his status is in the field:

I will here argue that the author of the Gospel of Mark was writing a fictional story and that the author himself knew that Jesus was not a real person, but rather the author was using Jesus as a fictional character in an intentionally fictional and allegorical narrative.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Toto · 11-24-2008, 01:33 PM

R. G. Price has posted here as Malachi151, and counts as an amateur commentator. But most of the current scholarly analysis of Mark treats the narrative as mythology or midrash, and not as history (with the possible exception of the crucifixion.) Jay Raskin thinks that the original story behind Mark was a play written by a woman, which would make it close to intentional fiction.

bacht · 11-24-2008, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

R. G. Price has posted here as Malachi151, and counts as an amateur commentator. But most of the current scholarly analysis of Mark treats the narrative as mythology or midrash, and not as history (with the possible exception of the crucifixion.) Jay Raskin thinks that the original story behind Mark was a play written by a woman, which would make it close to intentional fiction.

It seems reasonable to compare Mark with Old Testament narratives like the Elijah/Elisha cycle, which makes it mythical more than historical.

If we reject the 30 CE date as an arbitrary 'generation' before the temple fell, there must be lots of candidates for the original Joshua :huh:

aa5874 · 11-24-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Your approach that evidence must be credible before we can make any use of it is simplistic and completely unscientific.

You don't know what you are talking about. A scientific analysis of probabilities MUST I repeat MUST use credible information in oder for the results to be credible.

spin · 11-24-2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Stop projecting.

This is starting to sound like my first marriage.

She wised up to your antics.

spin

Iskander · 11-24-2008, 02:31 PM

Real historical 100 per cent

No Robots · 11-24-2008, 02:58 PM

In a more serious vein, it seems plain that the internal evidence from the Gospels makes the historicity of Christ absolutely indisputable. It is only a distorted approach to literary analysis that would take the mythicist position at all seriously.

show_no_mercy · 11-24-2008, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

In a more serious vein, it seems plain that the internal evidence from the Gospels makes the historicity of Christ absolutely indisputable. It is only a distorted approach to literary analysis that would take the mythicist position at all seriously.

Internal evidence?

If you use the "internal evidence" of a Spider-man comic, it makes the historicity of Peter Parker absolutely indisputable...

No Robots · 11-24-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Internal evidence?

If you use the "internal evidence" of a Spider-man comic, it makes the historicity of Peter Parker absolutely indisputable...

Notice how I mentioned "distorted approach to literary analysis?" It was intended as a pre-emptive strike on just this kind of inane comparison.

View Poll Results: What do you think the probability of a historical Jesus is?
100% - I have complete faith that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.	8	6.15%
80-100%	10	7.69%
60-80%	15	11.54%
40-60%	22	16.92%
20-40%	17	13.08%
0-20%	37	28.46%
o% - I have complete faith that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person,	21	16.15%
Voters: 130. You may not vote on this poll

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

11-24-2008, 01:33 PM	#53
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	R. G. Price has posted here as Malachi151, and counts as an amateur commentator. But most of the current scholarly analysis of Mark treats the narrative as mythology or midrash, and not as history (with the possible exception of the crucifixion.) Jay Raskin thinks that the original story behind Mark was a play written by a woman, which would make it close to intentional fiction.

11-24-2008, 02:31 PM	#57
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	Real historical 100 per cent

11-24-2008, 02:58 PM	#58
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	In a more serious vein, it seems plain that the internal evidence from the Gospels makes the historicity of Christ absolutely indisputable. It is only a distorted approach to literary analysis that would take the mythicist position at all seriously.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.