dongiovanni1976x

I cannot always logon to this site for a variety of reasons but I have to agree that maybe the MJ/HJ and/or the Inerrant and pure fiction crowd could have their own forum.
My personal opinion is that there are, statistically speaking, more educated members who frequent BC&H and I am guilty of framing my questions so that I can avoid the General Religious Forum...not that there aren't any smart folks on there but if I had to put my money on it, I get the intuitive impression that in BC&H there is more historical research going on...

Toto always points me to interesting and informative information, you always have a penchant for the Greek and a very rationalistic approach and Diogenes offers much of the same. There are many others too but overall BC&H is a bit more "scholarly" IMHO.

aa5874

This is exactly the problem. Some people here are responding for others, as if they control their thoughts. They appear to know everything about others.

Who determines rationality around here, Chris or you?

Do you respond for Chris because he cannot see?

Amaleq13

Reread my second sentence for your answer.

Solo

I agree there are several possible interpretations. The Jesus with a demon problem could have been invented as a mythical shield by those who fit the prophetic-Dionysic "peaker" profile, who recognized their own delusion, nonetheless believing the passing madness to be of divine origin and having beneficial effects in the long run. Actually they would not have to go far for such a view: the mad genius was a well known figure in antiquity. Socrates in Phaedrus affirms that the greatest blessings come to us through madness (dia manias).

Naturally, the temple disturbance could be fictional and reflect e.g. the Nazoreans' hate for the temple hierarchy inculpated in the death of James.
Taken in isolation, sure.

I don't see any context from Micah 7:1 or Psalm 35 (?) for the structure of the fig-tree story. There are at least three separate cognitive elements in it which need to be explained. Furst is the intent or symbolism behind Jesus' search for fruit at a time which he ought to have known the fruit was out of season and failing to find any fruit, cursing the tree. This cognitive element is so prominent and so much at loggerheads with the other two that it cannot be wished away or tacked away into a theological abracadabra. The fig tree does not stand for Israel-on-the-brink-of-a -disaster; it's a normally functioning fig-tree as Mark tells the story.

The second part- the observation by the disciples of the tree withering "to its roots" - therefore cognitively separates from the failed feeding and the curse. It is clear what Mark intended to do here, the revelation coming as it does after the cleansing of the temple, alas Mark forgot he already committed to present what he received, i.e. a report of an incident in which Jesus cursed a tree which would not produce fruit out of season. Psychologist would note here three things 1) a retribution motive, 2) classically asserted "omnipotence of thought", and 3) confused narration, in which the curse is effected following a declaration of a normally-behaving-tree vs strangely-behaving-Jesus.

The third element tops it all off. Mark deploys the well-known saying about "faith removing mountains" (disparagingly referred to by Paul in 1 Cr 13:2) as lessons-learned but the example of the potency of faith obviously misfires as it builds cognitively from the failure of Jesus' "faith" to effect a simple act of feeding off a tree not yet bearing fruit. So again, the myth is dysfunctional here.

I have noted several similar cognitive dissonances in Mark, e.g. in his telling the transfiguration story, or the Gerasene demoniac, or Jesus yelling at Peter in Caesarea Philippi, which though not conclusive in proving historicity argue strongly that Mark worked with some earlier material rather than inventing stuff on a blank page.

Jiri

Zeichman

I've been thinking about this a bit lately, too, Chris.

In particular:
-The internet allows for echo-chambers, so extremely-flawed viewpoints manage to go completely unquestioned.
-The anonymity allows one to make absurd claims that they might not if their name were attached to it.
-The lack of committed thought necessary for one to speak on it. We've all encountered people who think that by having scanned through the "jesus as myth" article on wikipedia (or a corresponding inerrantist website) that they're experts. Few people want to spend the time or money to investigate cutting-edge and mainstream research put forth in journals or more expensive (and not "popular") books.
-Generally, when these two groups oppose each other, there's an inevitable "excluded middle" and the dichotomy is set.

aa5874

If that's your final answer for Chris, well, I gues he cannot really see.

J-D

If he has put you on 'ignore', then he really can't. You do know how the 'ignore' function works, don't you?

J-D

My position is that your conclusions are valueless because your reasoning is logically flawed, and my rationale is that I detected you in two different logical fallacies (fallacy of composition and affirming the consequent) in another thread, and when I pointed them out you were unable to respond and went off at a tangent.

Ted Hoffman

Why should we believe what is in Mark is pre-existent material?

spamandham

Having participated in several online boards, one thing seems to be universally missing from them all, which is that, IMHO, the author of the OP should have some ownership right to the thread.

I'm not sure how to implement this, other than to give authors of OPs mod priviledges over their threads, but if some clever individual could figure out how to do it, then the author could prevent the endless rehashing of the same old crap, and force the OP to stick to his interests. This would also serve those who wish to endlessly rehash, by forcing them to mod their own threads to get to the bottom of whatever it is they want.

BC&H is not unique in regard to the problem you state, but it does seem to attract more messiahs than most places here.