the_cave

But this is a general statement--it doesn't say that all of the gospel story has been made up (but obviously you think that's what it means.)

But even if there was no "gospel" Jesus, there may have been a historical figure. That's the issue at hand.

But no, they're not. Again, in Galatians we have Peter (and Cephas?), James, and John. Not to mention Paul himself...

the_cave

I agree there is specific symbolism in it (which of course there would be if Jesus himself said it!) Obviously the question of Mark's overlying symbolism is too big to discuss here, even if I could meaningfully discuss it...but I would agree that it's important.

None that I know of. If I think of anything, I'll let you know.

That seems improbable--Cephas was already visiting Antioch in Paul's time. Why would they have skipped over Galilee?

Aha--well, that is possible.

Alright, let's grant you your argument provisionally. Let's say at the end of Mark, the disciples encounter Jesus in Galilee and get a miraculous catch of fish. What would that mean? One meaning might be that they proselytized in Galilee, and won some followers. While I'm not really willing to grant you your argument, this would at least suggest that Galilee was an early area of evangelization.

But Isa 9:1 has been taken care of already by the Galilean ministry.

Who needed an origin myth? Why did they need one? Wasn't the actual history good enough? Just asking questions. (You know, the Gospel of John in fact sets more of the events in Jerusalem...)

rlogan

Answered Vork already on that.

re-read please. "Modern Day equivalent" of Canada.

Within a day you can be anywhere in Canada. To say "meet you in Galilee" in 30 CE is the modern day equivalent of "meet you in Canada".

Uh, yes.

rlogan

It was. I had a thread a while ago where I challenged people to find things that were not mined from the HB. Basically nothing of significance.

You see the assertion on fundy sites that J.C. fulfilled 3,000 prophesies or however many it was. That isn't evidence he is the son of God. it is precisely the evidence that he was invented out of HB passages.

You've distorted this into me saying that one thing being fiction means everything is fiction.

Quite the opposite. The mountain of fiction points to the overwhelming odds that any particular passage is just more of the same.

Pick any of the 26 jesus' or whatever number that were mentioned by Josephus. There was one I recall in particular that led a group of fishermen and such. Killed a bunch of Romans.

"Jesus" basically means saviour. More a title than a name. Someone arising to leadership would be called that.

There are many historical persons by the name of Jesus.

Nice bedtime stories.


You have to take the evidence as a whole in forming a view on this. By narrowly focusing on tiny aspects in isolation, some things almost appear reasonable.

Amaleq13

I think you missed my point. Your question expressed incredulity that Mark's young man could make a promise that wasn't historically accurate yet the author of Luke clearly felt free to rewrite this allegedly historically accurate promise completely out of the story.

I see no reason to assume that either author was recording history.

spin

Then why are you leaving open the oral tradition idea, when there is nothing to suggest it, having only a complex set of literature?

What is this little bit of information that you can miraculously extract??

OK, where exactly was Latin spoken enough for it to have been a host language which needed consideration in the writing of the gospel of Mark? You need a Latin speaking community to spawn the term "Herodian". You need a Latin speaking community to understand the error regarding "satisfacere". You need a Latin speaking community to who you give your explanations about such things as the "praetorium". You need a Roman community which uses the coins that Jesus refers to. So where was this community? The easiest and most probable is in Rome. Can you think of any other community in the Mediterranean which could have provided the context?

There may have been some fact behind this tradition.

When your reason goes beyond the literature, is that within reason?

What was the antecedent for this coment?

No.

No.

They did.

This is a truism.

Tertullian's use of "Ebion":
Certainly not. Ebion is merely a transliteration of the Hebrew word for "poor". You find it frequently enough in the DSS.

What was important about Tertullian and Ebion was that one simply doesn't need a historical core to build up a story. How can you get past that in analysing literature which has no correlatives in the historical record?

Have we seen you present any arguments at all?

This forum I thought was one of analysis to some end, ie to understand that which we are analysing. Skepticism for skepicism's sake is rather empty, wouldn't you say? One has something behind it, eg the desire to understand. If it is such a desire one is attempting to form structures based on what is being analysed in order to understand it better. Those structures are hypotheses which one usually tests somehow.

That's a concession.

See my statement two responses above.

Normally one proffers their position. It is part of normal discussion.

And I guess as long as I keep answering them, you'll keep asking them of me.

Where exactly?

Where have you tried?

Have you got any results yet? If so, what?


spin

the_cave

And I replied to your answer.

Baffin Island? The Ungava? Maybe with a bush pilot and $1000...but since they came from more or less a specific area of Galilee (Capernaum) presumably that's where they would return to...besides, if they're simply going to have a vision of the risen Christ, it wouldn't matter where they went.

I sincerely doubt this. Let's say I visited you on Mars, and you told me "Oh, cave, just go back to Earth." I wouldn't ask you where exactly you meant--I would just buy the next ticket home.

the_cave

I haven't seen that thread, but how about "Isn't this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?"

I have no idea how many prophecies Jesus actually fulfilled. I'm interested in more neutral evidence.

Great, so we agree--there are elements of the gospel that is not fiction.

Uh, wait a minute, I thought you just said...

Oh yeah? Let me know the reference...

Fine. I've already said that for the moment I'm more interested in the community than in any one person. But it's possible Jesus could have been someone with a title.

Are you really trying to say that Galatians is a work of fiction?

At least you think it's reasonable at some level!

But talking about the "evidence as a whole" seems a bit like hand-waving...I'm saying that overall impressions can only go so far.

the_cave

Luke is writing significantly later than Mark, perhaps to a different audience, and is harmonizing events.

the_cave

But that's the nature of oral traditions--they disappear after a while. Yet we all know they exist.

From Wikipedia:

"In Sumerian and Akkadian mythology, King Gilgamesh lived and reigned about 2700 BC.

According to the Sumerian King List, he was the fourth king of Uruk in Sumer and he was succeeded by his son Ur-Nungal who ruled for 30 years:

Gilgamesh, whose father was a phantom (?), the lord of Kulaba, ruled for 126 years.
He built a temple to Ninlil in Nippur, and possibly the walls of Uruk.

Though in most texts Gilgamesh is written with the determinative for divine beings (dingir), there is little known about the actual cult. If there was ever a real deification, the Sumerian cycle of Gilgamesh myths shows it to be a later development (unlike in the case of the Akkadian god-kings).

Despite the lack of direct evidence, most scholars do not object to consideration of Gilgamesh as a historical figure."

I don't know myself, though maybe Alexandria or Antioch were big enough. There are other theories, of course, one or two of which are being discussed on other threads right now.

No problem here.

Obviously I don't think I'm going beyond the literature. I'm discussing the texts themselves.

I had said "Obviously you would agree that something distinguishes Christianity from other religions," and you replied "I don't see how."

Obviously what I meant was, they would call it the same thing as something else. What I'm saying is, even if it is a matter of drawing other traditions together, those traditions were drawn together at some point in time.

Whew, we agree on something!

Ok, so...there *wasn't* a founder. Tertullian was confused. Or maybe someone got confused about it before him. I don't have an issue with this. Does it matter?

I don't disagree. But the literature apparently can and does tell us much about what sort of a community we're talking about here--and you agree with this. I'm willing to start there.

If I haven't presented any arguments, what are you disagreeing with?

Obviously I have said I am skeptical of the OP, which is what this thread is about.

Yes--we are analyzing whether Isa 9:1 explains completely the presence of Galilee in the gospel of Mark.

I said I wanted to understand the history of early Christianity, and you came back pooh-poohing this notion. Not my fault if you don't believe me. But you can't come back again and claim I didn't say I have a desire to understand anything. This is getting a little silly.

Yes, by looking at the text, which I have been doing.

?! Spin, I really don't see a need to become insulting. This whole thing is becoming childish. I have not been outrageously critical. I have presented reasonable opinions, and attempted to support them with the text. I have participated in discussion in a polite manner. In fact, I have expressed interest (by asking questions) in several of your opinions. I am simply free to disagree with things I disagree with. And I have explained the reasons for my disagreement. What exactly have I done wrong here?

I didn't post the OP. When an OP is posted, discussion and criticism is invited. People comment and criticize as they see fit. No general statement of opinion is required. It is the same on every thread. I simply don't see the problem here. I have been skeptical of the OP. That sort of speaks for itself--my position is, I'm skeptical of the OP. What more needs to be said?

Well...yeah! Dialectics!

The Galilean ministry, needless to say...

Um, every post I've made...this is getting somewhat rude...

Nothing definitive. So, I continue to investigate.