CountryPreacher

There is a big difference between "a big leap" and a logical conclusion, but what is a "big leap" for one, is a small step for another.

THE POINT If you come to the Book of Mark with a conclusion, and seek to prove your conclusion, then for you it is a BIG LEAP.

If you look for internal evidence to support a thesis, then it become a step.

aa5874

Well, it is you who claimed that the author of gMark did not present Jesus as divine, and I referred you to three passages in gMark where the author did present Jesus as being divine.

It is not me who presented Jesus as divine, it was the author of gMark. And I will point out to you another passage where the author of Mark presented Jesus as divine.

Mark 14.61-62 Now, you seem to think that Jesus drowning pigs is not christian-like or divine, but His Father, the God of the Jews, according to Genesis, in his DIVINE and GODLY wisdom, drowned and destroyed the entire flora and fauna, plants, animals and human beings, except for a selected few.

How Divine of the DIVINE.

It is totally erroneous to claim that the author of Mark did not present Jesus as divine, when it can be clearly shown that passages from gMark itself, contradict you.

Ben C Smith

My first impulse is heroic biography.

Ben.

spin

If you will not read the archives before you post stuff that has been done to death here, please do not cite some book written 60 years ago (we've come a way since then) and expect others to traipse to the library to read it.

You've functionally brought things down to dealing with the original sources. Can you stick to that?

The onus is then on you to contextualize the gospels as being written in a time when the writers could get the information they deal with from contemporary sources. As it is, the earliest gospel known to the earliest fathers was that of Marcion acknowledged by Irenaeus who also knows Luke which he assumes is earlier than Marcion without supplying any way of his ever knowing. Beyond that we have to rely on at least secondary sources. This puts us over a century after the reputed facts. Where's the history?


spin

schilling.klaus

the gospel of Mark is a scribble from mid to late second century by Roman Stoic powermongers who try to forge Christianity into a Roman cosmopolitan ideology exploting the commonly respected ancient prophesies of the Jewish Scripture.

Klaus Schilling

CountryPreacher

One must be on his guard, in studying the Synoptic sources more or less in accordance with literary procedure at the present day, when the producers are individual literary personalities, when the producers are individual literary personalities. In the development of the gospels this was true only in a very limited measure. A careful examination of their history discloses that the selection, formulation, interpretation and, in part, likewise the arrangement of the material took place within the religious community and was carried on in steady contact with its life. Form Criticism
An Essay on New Testament Research, Karl Kundsin

Are all the "missing links" proof that evolution is not a scientific fact? Hardly.

Are there "missing links" in the historical record supporting the 1st four books of the NT as a reasonable historical record? Of course.

The point is there is a refusal by many to accept the obvious source material of the first 4 books of the NT as evidence for the existence of Jesus. I would suggest that you come to the material predeposed. That make it hardly an objective analysis. The same logic (?) predeposes the creationist to decry evolution.

Solitary Man

Why must you persist in this false canard?

spin

"Straight history" is a very hopeful category. Tacitus might be called "patronized" history, as might Dio Cassius also be. Another category is apologetic history as is the case with Josephus and apparently Berosus and Manetho. Suetonius might also be patronized history, though with a lower standard of quality control than Tacitus. Polybius, one of the "straighter" historians of antiquity, was still writing for a patron and with a commitment to the destiny of Rome. It's difficult even today to find "[s]traight history" being written. Your straight history from those times is merely better fodder for modern historians to chew, because there are more controls within them to help verify information.

(Now please don't let me interrupt you anymore in whatever it was you were doing. )


spin

mountainman

5. Bent (ie: pseudo) history (the Historia Augusta by its "Scriptores", the Historia Ecclesiastica by Eusebius) written at a time of new found political "freedom".


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Amaleq13

Even accepting the purpose you apparently accept, you've explained neither how you conclude the authors were "historians" nor how acceptance of the multiple versions of the story requires historical reliability.

Because a collection of sayings couldn't possibly be attributed to a non-historical figure?