Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loomis · 05-30-2008, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Hey what's wrong with the HTML?

I don’t know for sure. I’m just a consumer. Your pages are huge and that makes it hard to find the section in the text I’m looking for.

I’ve been discussing religious issues (Did Jesus exist?) on some other forums and occasionally I provide a link to your site. The trouble I have is that I can’t fine-tune the link. The people that I debate have short attention spans (as do the atheists & believers who lurk on the sidelines) and I need to get your information in front of their face as fast as possible.

They get overwhelmed easily by all of your (otherwise excellent) text. :notworthy:

Here’s a real life example of how I use your site from last July: I’m Jon Gnash on that forum.

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/...&postcount=225

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/...&postcount=226

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/...&postcount=228

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/...&postcount=229

Got five hours? I dare ya to read the whole thread. (I’m not suggesting that it’s worth it

)

It begins here:

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/...ighlight=sucks

The thread was already nine pages deep when I made my first post:

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/...t=sucks&page=9

Jon Curry · 05-30-2008, 07:14 PM

Awesome link Malachi. In fact I've stumbled across your website before and also found it to be excellent. I'd already read through much of your link, but I'll do it again more completely.

youngalexander · 05-30-2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You might view these hypothetical sources as the phlogiston of NT studies.

Best to be careful here. Looks like the aether is making a comeback. Maybe phlogiston will be next.:Cheeky:

Loomis · 05-30-2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I believe that I've put together a pretty solid case to prove that there is no Markan source material, that the Markan narrative is completely fabricated by the author himself, based on the letters of Paul and the "Old Testament", neither of which were used by the author as "source material", but more as inspirational material.

Okay. Let’s get serious. There is one thing that we might want to consider regarding Mark’s “source material”. It’s the issue of ‘Who killed Jesus? The Jews or the Romans?’

From your site: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar..._history.htm#2

Quote:

The Gospel of Mark just builds on this tradition, writing a story about a savior who is unrecognized by the Jews and eventually killed by them.

Did you read my post in this thread?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

I think the original story of Jesus’ execution was based on the Jewish law in Deuteronomy 21:22:

If a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and you hang him on a tree;

Notice that it is a two-step process. The criminal is killed (perhaps stoned to death), and then his dead body is hung on a tree.

This is what’s going on in Acts 5:30:

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, and hanged on a tree.

See?

Kill him.
Hang the body on a tree.

This is consistent with the central theme of the life of Jesus, which is irony. The idea was that the Jewish messiah arrived; but the Jews didn’t recognize him, and (ironically) they killed him as a common criminal under their own laws.

If the Romans killed Jesus then this sense of irony would be lost.

Is ‘Mark’ aware of the earlier tradition where Jesus is hung on a tree?

Because if not then that means that the theme of irony pre-dates Mark.

Right?

Am I making any sense?

Loomis · 05-30-2008, 08:46 PM

Let me try to explain this again [and the more I try to explain things the weirder I usually get].

It looks to me like there are TWO categories of execution stories:

The popular story (and it’s in Mark) where Jesus is crucified by the Romans.
An overlooked story where Jesus is killed by the Jews, and then hung on a tree by the Jews.

If I am correct – if there are TWO categories of execution stories – then I contend that the ‘tree story’ is the original because it preserves the theme of irony.

Do you understand why I say this?

But the trouble is – Mark does not preserve the ‘tree story’. Therefore Mark did use ‘source material’.

Am I making any sense?

Malachi151 · 05-31-2008, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Let me try to explain this again [and the more I try to explain things the weirder I usually get].

It looks to me like there are TWO categories of execution stories:

The popular story (and it’s in Mark) where Jesus is crucified by the Romans.
An overlooked story where Jesus is killed by the Jews, and then hung on a tree by the Jews.

If I am correct – if there are TWO categories of execution stories – then I contend that the ‘tree story’ is the original because it preserves the theme of irony.

Do you understand why I say this?

But the trouble is – Mark does not preserve the ‘tree story’. Therefore Mark did use ‘source material’.

Am I making any sense?

Not really. The "hung from a tree" version just comes straight from some "Old Testament" references.

The whole "hung from a tree" business starts with the Letter to the Galatians, where Paul wrote:

Quote:

Galatians 3:
10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

This comes from Deuteronomy.

Quote:

Deuteronomy 21:
22 If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, 23 you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

In typical Pauline fashion, Paul takes the OT passage out of context and misinterprets it. But this seems to be the basis of other references to Jesus having been "hung from a tree", which mostly comes from the first half of Acts, which is likely to be based on the Pauline letters.

Quote:

Acts 5:
29Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."

JoeWallack · 05-31-2008, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Curry

William Lane Craig often appeals to Mark's "Source Material" in justifying claims he makes during debates. He says that this Markan source material contains the story of the crucifixion and the story of the women discovering the empty tomb. Does anybody know what this source material is and what is contained within it? How does Craig justify his knowledge of what this supposed source material contained? Craig also claims that this source material is providing independent material. Does anybody know anything about this?

JW:
I would rank the importance of "Mark's" sources as follows:

1) His imagination.

The account consists primarily of the Impossible and what is not Impossible is Implausible so we can be certain that the account as a whole is Fiction. The previous sentence makes it Likely that in general any specific Assertian in "Mark" is more likely to be Fiction than History. This can be easily illustrated by looking at a few of the most basic Assertians regarding "Mark's" Jesus:

1 - What was Jesus' given name? There is a consensus that this is unknown.

2 - Who was Jesus' father? Unknown per "Mark".

3 - Who was Jesus mother? "Mark" is clear that it is Mary but "Mark" has a Literary technique of making up names which creates significant doubt.

4 - Where was Jesus' hometown? Nazareth seems the best candidate but there is serious doubt as to whether it was anyone's hometown at the time and subsequent Christianity has never found any physical supporting evidence.

5 - How old was "Mark's" Jesus? Mark doesn't say.

Christians and even Christian Familiars here make fun of people like aa and MM who assume that everything is Fiction yet in an Irony that "Mark" would really appreciate, aa and MM are always more likely to be right regarding any individual Assertian.

2) Paul

In OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source I've already demonstrated that Paul's (Mis)interpretation of the Jewish Bible was a major source for "Mark".

"Mark" shares Paul's major themes of Enduring Affliction, Revelation, Anti-historical witness and Irony. "Mark" uses many key words from Paul and has similarities in Structure.

3) The Jewish Bible

This source is Explicit in "Mark". Randall Helms righteously points out that the beginning allusion to Malachi in "Mark" is intended to communicate that the Jewish Bible was Jesus' history.

4) Historical witness

The controversial source. We can be certain that there was no historical witness to the Impossible and pretty sure there was no historical witness to the Implausible. The question is, is there any historical witness in "Mark"? I think there is because both "Mark" and Paul seem largely to be Reactions to Historical witness. The middle step though that Christians and even Christian familiars here miss is How does "Mark" treat historical witness to Jesus?

"Mark's" most important Theme is to Discredit historical witness. This Negative attitude towards historical witness makes it more likely that "Mark" did not use the historical witness for individual Assertians and combined with "Mark's" extreme preference for his Imagination, Paul and the Jewish Bible as Sources, makes historical witness an insignificant source. For the Christian Familiars here who accept the Christian Assertian that evidence for Historical Jesus is comParable to evidence for other ancients, please identify the parallels of the primary sources rejecting historical witness and having known preferred sources to historical witness. No, as Hans said in the classic Die Hard when it was Asserted that a Security guard was fuhcocktaing the Master Plan, "No, this is something else."

Die Hard Jewish Version

Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

fatpie42 · 05-31-2008, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

You might view these hypothetical sources as the phlogiston of NT studies.

LOL.

I love obscure references like that!

It's not that obscure. Phlogiston is pretty much a cliche in the philosophy of science. It's just a really good example of how scientific method can, in certain circumstances, reach a dead end. (Of course it was all for the best in the end. A new paradigm came about with the discovery of 'oxides' and science has learnt from the issue of phlogiston to avoid that kind of mistake in future.)

Doug Shaver · 05-31-2008, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Curry

Does anybody know what this source material is and what is contained within it?

Nope. Mark's source, if any, is unknown. All discussion of his sources is speculation.

To call it speculation doesn't mean none of it is right, but at this moment there is no telling who is right, if anybody is.

Of course, the speculations of people like Craig are almost certainly wrong

skunker · 05-31-2008, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Of course, the speculations of people like Craig are almost certainly wrong

And this is your speculation? :huh:

05-30-2008, 08:46 PM	#15
Loomis Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The recesses of Zaphon Posts: 969	Let me try to explain this again [and the more I try to explain things the weirder I usually get]. It looks to me like there are TWO categories of execution stories: The popular story (and it’s in Mark) where Jesus is crucified by the Romans. An overlooked story where Jesus is killed by the Jews, and then hung on a tree by the Jews. If I am correct – if there are TWO categories of execution stories – then I contend that the ‘tree story’ is the original because it preserves the theme of irony. Do you understand why I say this? But the trouble is – Mark does not preserve the ‘tree story’. Therefore Mark did use ‘source material’. Am I making any sense?

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

05-30-2008, 07:14 PM	#12
Jon Curry Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Posts: 87	Awesome link Malachi. In fact I've stumbled across your website before and also found it to be excellent. I'd already read through much of your link, but I'll do it again more completely.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.