Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 01-31-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I do not agree with you that the account contains any clues. My failure to agree with you does not imply a failure to read or consider what you wrote. I dismissed the possibility after giving it some thought. Not much thought, I'll admit, but as much as it seemed to deserve.

Ok, I just didn't see any evidence that you had given it any thought at all, so if I was unduly critical, I apologize. Others here have provided alternative arguments against some of the naturalistic "clues" I presented, which I have to admit seem pretty strong.

I'm ready to close out here..

take care,

ted

Vorkosigan · 02-01-2006, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Also, I think that Vork falls prey to what Raymond Brown describes as "the excessive chiasm detection that plagues modern scholarship."

I think that many of Vork discoveries come more from Vork than Mark.

Thanks! Although I suppose that a essentially meaningless statement followed by an unsupported personal opinion is hardly worth responding to. You are welcome, though, to provide a review, as everything I have done is on the net.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 02-01-2006, 02:49 AM

Quote:

He is reading it in English and, boy, did those translators do Mark a giant favor. They have changed the pitiful syntax of Mark and made it somewhat readable. If I say 'και ευθυς' I bet that anyone who has read the NT in Greek will know exactly what writer I am referring to.

And as we know, people who write pitiful syntax in Greek cannot produce documents with numerous and complex literary features.

Vorkosigan

Julian · 02-01-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Thanks! Although I suppose that a essentially meaningless statement followed by an unsupported personal opinion is hardly worth responding to.

I do not believe that the observation on chiasms is meaningless. However, you are correct in noting that the second part is, indeed, an unsupported personal opinion. It was meant to be and can certainly be discarded as such.

Quote:

You are welcome, though, to provide a review, as everything I have done is on the net.

I might, once I am done reading Mark. It is a slow procedure as my Greek is quite bad and I am reading Metzger's committee comments and Swanson along side of it.

Julian

Julian · 02-01-2006, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

And as we know, people who write pitiful syntax in Greek cannot produce documents with numerous and complex literary features.

I have no idea what this means. Is it an attempt at sarcasm?

Chris Weimer · 02-01-2006, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

I have no idea what this means. Is it an attempt at sarcasm?

Yes it is.

Thomas II · 02-01-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Are there clues for historicity in the accounts of Jesus walking on water, found in Mt, Mk, and Jn?

From Mark 6:47-51

John 6:15-21

Why were the disciples astonished?
1. Jesus walked on the water
2. Jesus had looked like a ghost but wasn’t
3. The rough wind stopped as soon as Jesus got into the boat
4. As soon as Jesus got into the boat they were at their destination (see John 6:21)
the rough wind?

6. John says that as soon as Jesus got into the boat they were at their destination. Why would Jesus pass them by if they were at their destination? Might it be that he hadn’t originally intended to get into the boat at all because he was already near Capernaum?

If Mark were making the story up as fiction, are there good reasons why the portrayal is as it is?

ted

Ted,
For me the connection of this is with GENESIS 1:2. "the spirit of God moved over the face of the waters"...

In nature, a storm moves over the face of the waters...
The storm has electricity...(lightning!)...(lightning!)
This charges the watery "womb" generating life...

Jesus represents the spirit of God generating spiritual life...

Doug Shaver · 02-02-2006, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas II

Jesus represents the spirit of God generating spiritual life...

Does that mean you think the walking-on-water story is not literally true but is metaphorically true?

RED DAVE · 02-02-2006, 07:54 AM

Old Jewish joke:

Jesus is walking on the water and Peter jumps overboard and begins to sink. Jesus grabs him by the scruff of his neck and pulls him up and says,

"Schmuck, don't you see the rocks?"

RED DAVE

Thomas II · 02-02-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Does that mean you think the walking-on-water story is not literally true but is metaphorically true?

People don't walk on water.
Jesus did not walk on water on a regular basis. This seems to have been a "one time deal". My take is that when things "happen" only once are more allegorical than anything else.
The healing events were more regular and more plausible.

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

02-02-2006, 07:54 AM	#49
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	Old Jewish joke: Jesus is walking on the water and Peter jumps overboard and begins to sink. Jesus grabs him by the scruff of his neck and pulls him up and says, "Schmuck, don't you see the rocks?" RED DAVE

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.