Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-07-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Which of those anonymous "authors" do you cite as an authority?

Where ever did I speak of or cite any of the authors there as being "an authority"?

Jeffrey

OK - you didn't. But why else link to it? What was your point there?

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-07-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Where ever did I speak of or cite any of the authors there as being "an authority"?

Jeffrey

OK - you didn't. But why else link to it? What was your point there?

I should think that was obvious.

Jeffrey

Apostate1970 · 01-07-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Ptolemy, one of Alexander's generals, is dictating a history. The viewer believes that he is watching that history and Stone has faithfully reproduced it.

At the very end of the narrative, we are told that the library at Alexandria burned down, and the movie suggests that this contained the only copy of Ptolemy's history of Alexander. Since there is no existing copy of Ptolemy's history, the narrative we have just watched cannot be true. Thus, since we have lost the narrator's work, we must conclude that the whole work is fiction and it is impossible for it to be an accurate history.

First of all I have no interest in the OP question and it seems very clear to me that, even if they thought of it as embroidered or even invented, the gospel authors wanted (or at least should have expected) their readers to view them largely as sober literal truth.

Second of all I never saw the Oliver Stone movie so I might be misunderstanding something here about what you're saying but I have some questions:

1) Do you seriously believe that because a document no longer exists it could never have been read?

2) Do you seriously believe that because a document no longer exists that anything that refers to it must refer to fictions or be fictional?

3) What do you think "fictional" means?

It's extraordinarily clear to me, and should be to anyone, that you have a highly deviant meaning of the word.

I take two sheets of paper. I mark the time on one of them and call that sheet "timesheet". I then read what's on that sheet. Then I take the second sheet and write on it "Timesheet was written at [whatever time is on it] and was read once.". Then I destroy timesheet ... shred it, burn it, whatever.

What you're saying is that timesheet is a fiction and that the second sheet is a work of fiction. Moreover, you're saying that one of the actual events I know to have happened and which is attested to by the second sheet, namely the reading of timesheet, simply never happened. But that's obviously false. If you're simply saying that in lieu of actually having timesheet in our hands we should retain a degree of skepticism about the details then you should just say that plainly instead of talking about "fiction" or maintaining that events that very well could have happened and which we might even have the strongest possible evidence for must not have happened after all.

Honestly though, you shouldn't even bother to respond since nothing you say in defense of yourself except "You're right, I was just talking crazy." will only make you sound crazier.

Toto · 01-07-2009, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apostate1970

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Ptolemy, one of Alexander's generals, is dictating a history. The viewer believes that he is watching that history and Stone has faithfully reproduced it.

At the very end of the narrative, we are told that the library at Alexandria burned down, and the movie suggests that this contained the only copy of Ptolemy's history of Alexander. Since there is no existing copy of Ptolemy's history, the narrative we have just watched cannot be true. Thus, since we have lost the narrator's work, we must conclude that the whole work is fiction and it is impossible for it to be an accurate history.

First of all I have no interest in the OP question

Feel free not to answer in that case.

Quote:

and it seems very clear to me that, even if they thought of it as embroidered or even invented, the gospel authors wanted (or at least should have expected) their readers to view them largely as sober literal truth.

You can read minds from 2000 years ago?

Quote:

Second of all I never saw the Oliver Stone movie

You're on a roll...

Quote:

so I might be misunderstanding something here about what you're saying but I have some questions:

1) Do you seriously believe that because a document no longer exists it could never have been read? . . .

OK, here's where you have missed the point. If the only copy of Ptolemy's history had been burned when the Library at Alexandria had been burned, it clearly was not available to Oliver Stone or his scriptwriters. So the movie was not based on that history, and the movie viewer knows that it is just part of the fantasy, something expected in a movie.

Does this clarify things?

Clivedurdle · 01-07-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

(by Dennis R. MacDonald; Yale University, 2000)

by

Richard Carrier

An Incredible Book

This is an incredible book that must be read by everyone with an interest in Christianity. MacDonald's shocking thesis is that the Gospel of Mark is a deliberate and conscious anti-epic, an inversion of the Greek "Bible" of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, which in a sense "updates" and Judaizes the outdated heroic values presented by Homer, in the figure of a new hero, Jesus (whose name, of course, means "Savior"). When I first heard of this I assumed it would be yet another intriguing but only barely defensible search for parallels, stretching the evidence a little too far—tantalizing, but inconclusive. What I found was exactly the opposite. MacDonald's case is thorough, and though many of his points are not as conclusive as he makes them out to be, when taken as a cumulative whole the evidence is so abundant and clear it cannot be denied. And being a skeptic to the thick, I would never say this lightly. Several scholars who reviewed or commented on it have said this book will revolutionize the field of Gospel studies and profoundly affect our understanding of the origins of Christianity, and though I had taken this for hype, after reading the book I now echo that very sentiment myself.

Background and Purpose of Mark

MacDonald begins by describing what scholars of antiquity take for granted: anyone who learned to write Greek in the ancient world learned from Homer. Homer was the textbook. Students were taught to imitate Homer, even when writing on other subjects, or to rewrite passages of Homer in prose, using different vocabulary. Thus, we can know for certain that the author of Mark's Gospel was thoroughly familiar with the works of Homer and well-trained in recasting Homeric verse into new prose tales. The status of Homer in basic education remained throughout antiquity, despite the fact that popular and intellectual sentiment had been sternly against the ethics and theology of his epics since the age of Classical Greece. Authors from Plato (400 b.c.e) to Plutarch (c. 100 c.e.) sought to resolve this problem by "reinterpreting" Homer as allegory, or by expunging or avoiding offensive passages, neither of which was a perfect solution.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...erandmark.html

Sorry, GMark as a very complex work with elements of play, mystery, game, irony, based on Homer makes a lot of sense.

It has led to a very powerful religion so it probably is a very complex and intriguing document - that must not be read at face value!

S.C.Carlson · 01-07-2009, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

You don't believe that Mark was Luke's source?

That's what a majority of scholars infer due to the similarities.

Well, that's what they believe, but how about you?

Stephen

patcleaver · 01-07-2009, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Regardless, Jesus would have picked a good field with grass of ideal height for his trick.

Assumes your conclusion, doesn't it?

Right, its fiction so the author just makes the field have whatever grass he wants it to have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

The only reason they are telling you that there is a great deal of grass is that its a clue.

"only reason"? It seems directly connected to his invitation for them to sit down.

Right, when Mark is writing his fictional book and he wants to provide a clue for how one of Jesus' miracles is faked, the clue can have another purpose besides being a clue.

Quote:

If one starts with a conclusion and then procedes to search only for confirming evidence of that conclusion, one is likely to find just what one wants. Unfortunately, this is certainly not a reliable method for reaching a sound conclusion.

The gospel writers seem to have intentionally left clues indicating how Jesus faked his miracles. I am hypothesizing that one of the purposes of the gospels was a game in which you searched for the clues to determine how Jesus faked his miracles - a kind of "find Wally" game.

The question is how many miracle stories seem to provide clues about how they were faked, and how many miracle stories do not seem to provide any clues.

storytime · 01-07-2009, 09:22 PM

"a kind of find "Wally game"." ?

That would go along with why the character Jesus spoke in parables? The purpose of the parables was in holding truth and lies, and how Jesus imposed one undercover of the other?

Matthew 11:5 seems to bring out the fiction of the blind, lame, dead and poor, as not actual physical ailments but figurative speaking in how people were made to see and understand.

Being blind from birth could have indicated the generations of ignorance. "Why can't you see?[understand]"

Some were not meant to understand and why Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables. His intent was to deceive. A game. Who were the winners and losers? Was this a normal way of Greek Hellenistic teaching in gamesmanship?

The same inference that seems to apply to "the blind" also applies to/as the lame and the dead, and the poor(ly) as the uneducated. All indicating the same condition.

When Jesus said, "the dead are raised up", did he indicate to John how certain people were made aware, educated in the "mysteries" of the kingdom of heaven?

aa5874 · 01-07-2009, 10:58 PM

I do not think that the authors would have deliberately written anything to show that they were writing fiction, any indication of fiction would have been inadvertent.

The authors of the gospels appear to be writing stories that they want the readers to believe did occur, but ended up with stories that have huge holes in them.

And huge holes are consistent with those who make stuff up and try to present them as true.

JoeWallack · 01-08-2009, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

It seems to me that Mark and John similarly contain such "ending confessions" of the impossibility their narratives.

Mark:

16.8 And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

Since nobody was told the story, how could the story ever be told? Obviously it couldn't. Therefore, the reader understands that the story must be fiction.

JW:
I previously demonstrated that Paul was one of "Mark's" major sources:

OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source

and the above is a prime example of "Mark" using Paul's theme of Jesus' information via revelation. Paul's traveling companion to a sole/dominant source of revelation is to deny/ignore historical source. "Mark" in effect has written the prequelle to Paul, how the Jesus situation could have got to the point it was at right before Paul. There was historical witness to Jesus but they rejected and never understood the significance of Jesus' supposed Passion. Enter Paul, stage right. The Light, kamrios, revealed action!

"Mark's" ending than is consistent with Paul. Historical witness did not talk about Jesus' Passion. You had to learn it through revelation. Well, actually someone else's revelation. But, as Tevye said, "It's a Revelation! I'm pretty sure that Paul was being serious when he said this (non-fiction intent). So if "Mark" is sourcing Paul than "Mark" may also be serious. Or he could be making fun of Paul. Or it could be something in between.

As I also demonstrated http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....60#post5362860 1 Thessalonians parallels very well with "Mark". Note the ending:

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?tit...hessalonians_5

Quote:

5:17 pray without ceasing;

5:18 in everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus to you-ward.

5:19 Quench not the Spirit;

5:20 despise not prophesyings;

5:21 prove all things; hold fast that which is good;

5:22 abstain from every form of evil.

5:23 And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

5:24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who will also do it.

5:25 Brethren, pray for us.

5:26 Salute all the brethren with a holy kiss.

5:27 I adjure you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the brethren.

5:28 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

JW:
Note that per Paul knowledge of Jesus is spread through the reading of the epistle which is based on revelation and not historical witness.

"Mark's" Jesus would be sore amazed that the best example of intentional fiction has not been mentioned yet in this unholy Thread:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_13

Quote:

Mark 13:14 But when ye see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not (let him that readeth understand), then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains:

Apologists claim that this is only an editorial comment and than try to handwave away the problem. But there's no way to see it other than "Mark's" Jesus talking to his audience at the Text level but communicating with the author's audience at the Sub-text level = Fiction. Of course all this means is that the author's intent was that this was a fictional conversation, not that the whole Gospel is fiction. Note that "Matthew" who tends to follow "Mark" the closest, also has the reference to the Reader. If we look at "Luke" though:

http://www.textexcavation.com/synabomination.html

who is trying the hardest to move away from Paul/"Mark's" revelation source to claimed historical source, we see that the reference to the Reader has been exorcised. Understand dear Reader?

I have a Thread here:

Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fiction In The Original Gospel

where I am inventorying "Mark's" use of intentional fiction. So far I have:

1) Presentation of names:

Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Presentation Of Names As Evidence Of Fiction

2) The theme of the disciples "following" Jesus.

3) The use of numbers.

4) The story of the Jews washing their hands with fists.

5) Extreme irony.

6) The story of taking up your cross (before the cross had been taken up).

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

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

01-07-2009, 09:22 PM	#58
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	"a kind of find "Wally game"." ? That would go along with why the character Jesus spoke in parables? The purpose of the parables was in holding truth and lies, and how Jesus imposed one undercover of the other? Matthew 11:5 seems to bring out the fiction of the blind, lame, dead and poor, as not actual physical ailments but figurative speaking in how people were made to see and understand. Being blind from birth could have indicated the generations of ignorance. "Why can't you see?[understand]" Some were not meant to understand and why Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables. His intent was to deceive. A game. Who were the winners and losers? Was this a normal way of Greek Hellenistic teaching in gamesmanship? The same inference that seems to apply to "the blind" also applies to/as the lame and the dead, and the poor(ly) as the uneducated. All indicating the same condition. When Jesus said, "the dead are raised up", did he indicate to John how certain people were made aware, educated in the "mysteries" of the kingdom of heaven?

01-07-2009, 10:58 PM	#59
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	I do not think that the authors would have deliberately written anything to show that they were writing fiction, any indication of fiction would have been inadvertent. The authors of the gospels appear to be writing stories that they want the readers to believe did occur, but ended up with stories that have huge holes in them. And huge holes are consistent with those who make stuff up and try to present them as true.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.