Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 06-28-2010, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, Mark's Jesus was both God and man. You cannot LIMIT the scope of gMark by IGNORING the Divine characteristics.

gMark is what it is and says what it says. I understand that. What I am trying to do is examine whether it contains clues to a REAL truth that would be in contradiction to it's own portrayal of Jesus. Isn't this what all historians look for? Don't they believe that all history is colored by the biases of the culture/authors and that the TRUTH sometimes can be gleened nevertheless?

Quote:

And further, your notion that Jesus believers or the author of gMark KNEW Jesus was just a man who lived in Galilee for about thirty years, crucified for blasphemy and STILL worshiped him as a God contrary

Let me be clear: I'm saying that the folks may have been similar to modern-day Christians who believed Jesus had been a human with God's power within him. But, that the reality was that he was a human about whom little was known and much was developed as myth--probably not intentionally, but in order to make him compatible with the Messiah expected from their own interpretation of the OT scriptures.

Clivedurdle · 06-28-2010, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Hercules is the Roman name for the Greek demigod Heracles, son of Jupiter (the Roman equivalent of Zeus), and the mortal Alcmena.

Early Roman sources suggest that the imported Greek hero supplanted a mythic Italic shepherd called "Recaranus" or "Garanus", famous for his strength, who dedicated the Ara Maxima that became associated with the earliest Roman cult of Hercules.[1]

While adopting much of the Greek Heracles' iconography and mythology as his own, Hercules adopted a number of myths and characteristics that were distinctly Roman.

With the spread of Roman hegemony, Hercules was worshiped locally from Spain through Gaul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules

Clivedurdle · 06-28-2010, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Do you hold to the belief that Mark is a clever book of fiction since he --according to you--has duped millions of people for 2000 years?

No duping going on. Until recently, people believed in dogpeople. I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The vast majority of humans on this planet still believe in demons and spirits and gods and miracles.

Witchcraft trials only stopped a couple of hundred years ago.

Is an author telling a story duping the audience?

TedM · 06-28-2010, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

All the other early writings that showed knowledge of gMark.

I guess this is the answer to "what earliest evidence?" but it doesn't answer the question. Are you claiming that the later gospel writers, who felt free to add details and change key facts are evidence that Mark was read as history?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

Quote:

I would conclude the opposite. Matthew and Luke treat Mark as an earlier draft of a movie script, subject to revision.

And yet, throughout all of history we have no evidence that anyone thinks that. This theory fails the common sense test. More likely they tweaked what they believed was substantially accurate history with what conflicted with their own theology.

Quote:

A historian, or someone trying to imitate one, would start off by establishing his credentials - I, Markus son of XX, in the year whatever of the reign of some emperor, based on what I saw . . .

I thought you were referring to the content of the story--making certain actions/places/people/events more plausible than they are... I see you are referring to establishing his credentials. I'm not sure an amateur should be expected to do so. I have heard that it is most likely that there was a page with each gospel that did so, but that it was separate from the work itself. Maybe someone here can elaborate..as it has been too long since I've seen that.

Quote:

While written in what is called "bad Greek," Mark is an intelligent literary construction. But it is not credible history, and the only people who read it as history are trying to find a historical Jesus, for whatever purpose.

Yet to me he doesn't adequately address things one might reasonably expect if it were just intelligent fiction. That makes me think there is a bit more history and a bit less intelligence involved..anyway, that's what the OP is based on..

Quote:

Originally Posted by ted

Quote:

Originally Posted by toto

The expectation that the Messiah would have been in the tribe of Judah, and in the line of David, and perhaps born in Bethlehem? What expectation was there that the Messiah would have been a spirit descended from heaven in his 30th year, and where does Mark mention Jesus' 30th year?

You're right, only Luke pegs Jesus' age as 30, although that is not inconsistent with Mark's story.

In general, Mark's Jesus seems to dash those messianic expectations.

Mark clearly is using scripture to support the idea that Jesus was the Messiah, yet he overlooks perhaps the strongest expectation of his lineage. And I see no basis for the expectation you suggest, other than perhaps coming from a Doherty-colored interpretation of the earlier epistles. Yet, those epistles also mention the lineage? Why doesn't Mark do so?

Quote:

...
I'm saying there could have been some traditions about Jesus' ministry and perhaps NO helpful ones about his life prior to the ministry. This could explain Mark's focus on only a very short period of time in a historical Jesus' life.

Or there could have been no surviving traditions, and gospel writers made up what the Spirit told them to.

Same answer as above. If Mark were making it up, he'd likely be scripturally 'inspired' to include earlier life references.

Clivedurdle · 06-28-2010, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Let me be clear: I'm saying that the folks may have been similar to modern-day Christians who believed Jesus had been a human with God's power within him. But, that the reality was that he was a human about whom little was known and much was developed as myth--probably not intentionally, but in order to make him compatible with the Messiah expected from their own interpretation of the OT scriptures.

I am not sure there are many modern xians who say he was a human with added god bits - that sounds like an atheist position.

The traditional xian view is the fully god fully man of the creeds. A Pope has declared the minimal human Jesus a heresy.

If we are discussing an hj please could we acknowledge this is a post enlightenment invention, very related to deist attitudes. It is not the NT son of God raised in glory, sitting at the right hand of God to judge us all, our Melchizadeck.

Could we please have some respect for the actual beliefs of people?

Clivedurdle · 06-28-2010, 11:46 AM

Just checking, we are discussing Mark aren't we?

Quote:

Mark 9

1And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

The Transfiguration

2After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.

5Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." 6(He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.)

7Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!"

8Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus.

9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. 10They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what "rising from the dead" meant.

Toto · 06-28-2010, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...
And yet, throughout all of history we have no evidence that anyone thinks that. This theory fails the common sense test. More likely they tweaked what they believed was substantially accurate history with what conflicted with their own theology.

What do you mean "all of history?" For most of history, Christians did not read the gospels and did not read them as history. It was only after the Enlightenment that Deists tried to extract a merely human Jesus from the gospels to give faith a more rational basis.

The only "common sense" view, is, of course, mine. :Cheeky:

Quote:

I thought you were referring to the content of the story--making certain actions/places/people/events more plausible than they are... I see you are referring to establishing his credentials. I'm not sure an amateur should be expected to do so. I have heard that it is most likely that there was a page with each gospel that did so, but that it was separate from the work itself. Maybe someone here can elaborate..as it has been too long since I've seen that.

That idea is such a pathetic attempt to justify the lack of credentials that it would be best to ignore it. The idea that Christians would lose an important part of their sacred history - it's just too convenient. </church lady>

Quote:

Yet to me he doesn't adequately address things one might reasonably expect if it were just intelligent fiction. That makes me think there is a bit more history and a bit less intelligence involved..anyway, that's what the OP is based on..

CCS Lewis decided that the gospels must be true because they were obviously the product of illiterate fishermen who didn't even speak proper Greek. But this ignores everything that is now known about their literary structure, their use of Koine Greek, etc.

If you are going to seriously argue that Mark is not intelligent enough, so his tale must be true, you are going to have to do a lot more explaining. How do you deal with the gospel being written so late, after the events it describes, in a language the the people involved did not speak? How is this compatible with historical truth?

Quote:

Mark clearly is using scripture to support the idea that Jesus was the Messiah, yet he overlooks perhaps the strongest expectation of his lineage. And I see no basis for the expectation you suggest, other than perhaps coming from a Doherty-colored interpretation of the earlier epistles. Yet, those epistles also mention the lineage? Why doesn't Mark do so?

I suspect the references to the lineage were interpolated into the epistles.

Quote:

Or there could have been no surviving traditions, and gospel writers made up what the Spirit told them to.

Same answer as above. If Mark were making it up, he'd likely be scripturally 'inspired' to include earlier life references.

And who are you to question the Holy Spirit? :Cheeky:

Clivedurdle · 06-28-2010, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/spee...ountaintop.htm

TedM · 06-28-2010, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Let me be clear: I'm saying that the folks may have been similar to modern-day Christians who believed Jesus had been a human with God's power within him. But, that the reality was that he was a human about whom little was known and much was developed as myth--probably not intentionally, but in order to make him compatible with the Messiah expected from their own interpretation of the OT scriptures.

I am not sure there are many modern xians who say he was a human with added god bits - that sounds like an atheist position.

You have misread me. No disrespect on my part.

Clivedurdle · 06-28-2010, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I am not sure there are many modern xians who say he was a human with added god bits - that sounds like an atheist position.

You have misread me. No disrespect on my part.

How?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.