Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Adam · 10-20-2011, 10:03 AM

I've been mostly ignoring your posts, aa,
as you seem to be just asserting things unnecessarily. In Post #100 I see you as presenting a Docetic Jesus, a spirit who was never a man. Is it a Marcionite Jesus that you are presenting?

aa5874 · 10-20-2011, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

I've been mostly ignoring your posts, aa,
as you seem to be just asserting things unnecessarily. In Post #100 I see you as presenting a Docetic Jesus, a spirit who was never a man. Is it a Marcionite Jesus that you are presenting?

You are making a most blatant erroneous statement.

You READ my posts BUT cannot respond.

EVERYBODY read my POSTS.

And, please stop wasting my time.

You KNOW exactly what I have been writing and now pretend to be IGNORANT.

This is NOT a game.

You are on BC&H. People here are NOT brain-dead.

Sheshbazzar · 10-20-2011, 10:40 AM

:eating_popcorn:

aa5874 · 10-20-2011, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

:eating_popcorn:

Its CELEBRATION time. HJ has been destroyed.

The Synoptic Jesus MATCHES the MARCION Phantom.

:eating_popcorn::eating_popcorn::eating_popcorn::e ating_popcorn::slowclap::slowclap::slowclap:

jakejonesiv · 10-21-2011, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I think it is important that the Synoptics were not only similar in content but also similar in style. Whatever genre they fall into, it's reasonable to think that Matthew, Mark and Luke fall into the same genre.

Luke then becomes important, since the start of Luke reads:

Luke 1.1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

So aLuke claims to be writing history. Thus the options are:

"Fraud": Luke claimed to be writing history but knew that he wasn't. He was trying to make people think he was writing history.
"Fiction": Luke claimed to be writing history but knew that he wasn't. He wasn't trying to make people think he was writing history, since he expected his readers to understand that he wasn't writing history about an actual person.
"Fact": Luke claimed to be writing history because he thought what he was writing was history about an actual person (though putting his own twist on things).
"Mistaken": Luke didn't claim to be writing history. The claim was interpolated or misinterpreted.

I don't think many would choose "Mistaken", so we can leave it aside.

Hi GakuseiDon,

Why are you so quick to dismiss "mistaken"? You have gone all out of your way to convince us that "Luke" (where was this evangelist before 180 CE?) thought he was writing history by appeal to 1:1-4.

But then we read in the same chapter that Jesus was conceived when the Historical Holy Ghost overshadowed a Virgin??? Whatever your reasoning, this is not fact. So you can just strike out your second bullet point from the list (I have done so for you) and we must choose from the other possibilities.

Jake Jones IV

Vorkosigan · 10-21-2011, 07:19 AM

Is Luke claiming to be a witness here, or just testifying that her faith is unusually insightful from the moment she started believing:

3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

....because if it is the former, then Luke is a damned liar, and the answer is (1).

Vorkosigan

Iskander · 10-21-2011, 07:31 AM

That women are impregnated by god it is of course not a fact and nobody in the Hebrew Bible has ever claimed that, but that real humans were conceived by the intervention of god, as described in Luke, is a very common motif in the Hebrew Bible.

The Israelites understood this one-to one intervention to mean only the “opening of the womb”.

jakejonesiv · 10-21-2011, 08:59 AM

Let's get back to the OP. Why do the synoptics match? Matthew, Mark, and Luke can be demonstrated to have a literary (i.e., written) relationship with each other. In other words, someone was copying from someone else.

Indeed, we can view Matthew and Luke as simply massive redactions of Mark. They have no problem "correcting" Mark whenever they see fit.This happens anytime they feel uneasy with the Markan text. And since these evangelists have no reservation in adding to and changing Mark wherever it suits their respective agendas, it is quite obvious that the later gospel writers did not consider Mark to be authoritative or to be historical truth. It was just a vehicle to build upon to transmit their own viewpoints.

So my question is, why should we have more respect for the "accuracy" of the gospel texts than the evangelists themselves?

Jake

jakejonesiv · 10-21-2011, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

That women are impregnated by god it is of course not a fact and nobody in the Hebrew Bible has ever claimed that, but that real humans were conceived by the intervention of god, as described in Luke, is a very common motif in the Hebrew Bible.

The Israelites understood this one-to one intervention to mean only the “opening of the womb”.

I am loving that Historical Holy Ghost and Angel Gabriel. History or fantasy? You tell me.

Jake

Chili · 10-21-2011, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Is Luke claiming to be a witness here, or just testifying that her faith is unusually insightful from the moment she started believing:

3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

....because if it is the former, then Luke is a damned liar, and the answer is (1).

Vorkosigan

Luke obviously knew first hand by nature how it is done and traced the events as they happened to him and just put it on paper to show how wrong the instructions were that Theopholus had received.

. . . and of course he starts with the infancy narrative of John to identify the natural, or nature driven, or perhaps better soul driven force that brougth the rebirth of Joseph about, that so is intuit or acrhetypal upon him to follow a 'set path' wherein he first describes the prevailing mood of Joseph with Zachariah's persistence to find peace on earth in 'full assembly' that is followed with the reproof of Elizabeth who so renders Joseph "beyond theology" (nice phrase from Allen watts = eidelons on the run), which in turn leads to the Annunciation of Mary in the conscious mind of Joseph.

What this really does is show how Joseph melancholy was involutional as opposed to wild goose chasing dream of Joseph in Matthew who so will not and never have his own soul beside him where wisdom is home and Mephis is captive.

And yes, I understand that this makes John and Jesus bosum buddies and kind of does away with the historical Jesus as human while it validates him as 'the ultimate way' in Christendom and remains true in faith but not in linguistic scrutiny without faith. IOW, bible reading is not a good idea and likely worse than smoking cigarets which can only touch the body itself and I wish somebody would tell the Gideons that.

10-21-2011, 08:59 AM	#108
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Why should we have more respect for the Gospels than the Evangelists did? Let's get back to the OP. Why do the synoptics match? Matthew, Mark, and Luke can be demonstrated to have a literary (i.e., written) relationship with each other. In other words, someone was copying from someone else. Indeed, we can view Matthew and Luke as simply massive redactions of Mark. They have no problem "correcting" Mark whenever they see fit.This happens anytime they feel uneasy with the Markan text. And since these evangelists have no reservation in adding to and changing Mark wherever it suits their respective agendas, it is quite obvious that the later gospel writers did not consider Mark to be authoritative or to be historical truth. It was just a vehicle to build upon to transmit their own viewpoints. So my question is, why should we have more respect for the "accuracy" of the gospel texts than the evangelists themselves? Jake

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

10-20-2011, 10:03 AM	#101
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	I've been mostly ignoring your posts, aa, as you seem to be just asserting things unnecessarily. In Post #100 I see you as presenting a Docetic Jesus, a spirit who was never a man. Is it a Marcionite Jesus that you are presenting?

10-20-2011, 10:40 AM	#103
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	:eating_popcorn:

10-21-2011, 07:19 AM	#106
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Is Luke claiming to be a witness here, or just testifying that her faith is unusually insightful from the moment she started believing: 3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, ....because if it is the former, then Luke is a damned liar, and the answer is (1). Vorkosigan

10-21-2011, 07:31 AM	#107
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	That women are impregnated by god it is of course not a fact and nobody in the Hebrew Bible has ever claimed that, but that real humans were conceived by the intervention of god, as described in Luke, is a very common motif in the Hebrew Bible. The Israelites understood this one-to one intervention to mean only the “opening of the womb”.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.