Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Huon · 06-28-2010, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

3. Following the baptism, Mark starts with Jesus' ministry which appears to be very short. From what I can tell, his ministry may well have lasted only a few months as there is no mention of more than one passover. And, if Jesus really did have a short ministry, might the truth be that he didn't do or say near the things attributed to him--ie that he was much less known than portrayed?

How dare you say that ? The gospels were written by people who got their information from direct witnesses, so says Eusebius, at least.

show_no_mercy · 06-28-2010, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

That sure sounds like possession, Huon.

Of course at the beginning of Mark, Jesus is possessed by the holy spirit and this holy spirit addresses people possessed with unclean spirits.

Even the very first "person" to notice that Jesus (or the spirit possessing him) was the "holy one of god" was an unclean spirit. It seems very much like in Mark's world, spirits possessed people. Mark seems to be the story of the son of god possessing Jesus and then leaving him on the cross.

Huon · 06-28-2010, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

4. Mark's Jesus has four brothers and at least two sisters (6:3). If Mark were making up a Jesus, or if traditions developed of a historical Jesus, why 4 brothers and 2 sisters instead of being an only child?

At that time, the myth of the Holy Virgin had not been developed...
There are three competing theories about the question of the brethren of Jesus :

· The theory of Helvidius, written before 383. The brothers and sisters of Jesus are the children of Joseph and Mary, born after Jesus. Helvidius supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian (ca.160 – ca. 220) and Victorinus (died 303 or 304) of Poetovio (Ptuj, Slovenia).

· The theory of Epiphanius (ca. 310–320 – 403) was bishop of Salamis and metropolitan of Cyprus at the end of the 4th century. The brothers and sisters of Jesus are the children of a previous marriage of Joseph.

· The theory of Saint Jerome (c. 347 – September 30, 420). The "brothers and sisters" of Jesus are really his cousins, born of a brother of Joseph, Clopas by name, and a sister of Mary, bearing the same name, Mary.

Huon · 06-28-2010, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

My intention is to discuss the assumption that Mark was writing fiction about a person who never existed, so I'd like the focus to be on Mark. The comments provided so far need to be explained and applied to my specific questions. tia..

The focus in on your questions. I don't know if JC existed or not. I mention simply that the myth about him is not completely developed at the time of gMark. You mention that something is missing in gMark, I agree with you.

TedM · 06-28-2010, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

4. Mark's Jesus has four brothers and at least two sisters (6:3). If Mark were making up a Jesus, or if traditions developed of a historical Jesus, why 4 brothers and 2 sisters instead of being an only child?

At that time, the myth of the Holy Virgin had not been developed...

There are three competing theories about the question of the brethren of Jesus :

· The theory of Helvidius, written before 383. The brothers and sisters of Jesus are the children of Joseph and Mary, born after Jesus. Helvidius supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian (ca.160 – ca. 220) and Victorinus (died 303 or 304) of Poetovio (Ptuj, Slovenia).

· The theory of Epiphanius (ca. 310–320 – 403) was bishop of Salamis and metropolitan of Cyprus at the end of the 4th century. The brothers and sisters of Jesus are the children of a previous marriage of Joseph.

· The theory of Saint Jerome (c. 347 – September 30, 420). The "brothers and sisters" of Jesus are really his cousins, born of a brother of Joseph, Clopas by name, and a sister of Mary, bearing the same name, Mary.

These theories are far removed from Mark. Why doesn't Mark explain that the Messiah's brothers and sisters aren't really his brothers and sisters? Why doesn't he mention Joseph? Why doesn't he mention the previous marriage? Rather, he presents the Messiah as just being a regular person with a mother, no father, and with brothers and sisters. Why would he do that? What biblical basis would he have for doing that and why didn't he reference it?

Huon · 06-28-2010, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

5. Mark's Jesus was highly offensive to those that adhered to Jewish Law--in particular to the pharisees. He is shown to violate Jewish law on a number of occasions, and he cavorted with tax collectors and sinners. While perhaps just a good story plot--giving plenty of incentive to the Pharisees to kill him, it also can be seen as somewhat embarrassing, with need for explanation. Mark provides the explanations with clever quotes from Jesus. However, the embarrassment may be seen as evidence of some authenticity.

gMark is written (by a witness of a witness, at best) for people who do not accept the Jewish Law.

TedM · 06-28-2010, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

5. Mark's Jesus was highly offensive to those that adhered to Jewish Law--in particular to the pharisees. He is shown to violate Jewish law on a number of occasions, and he cavorted with tax collectors and sinners. While perhaps just a good story plot--giving plenty of incentive to the Pharisees to kill him, it also can be seen as somewhat embarrassing, with need for explanation. Mark provides the explanations with clever quotes from Jesus. However, the embarrassment may be seen as evidence of some authenticity.

gMark is written (by a witness of a witness, at best) for people who do not accept the Jewish Law.

Is this an example of what you believe to be a reasonable possibility? Or, is it based on evidence? If it is based on evidence what is that evidence?

Mark's Jesus did not seem very interested in the Gentiles (7:26-27):

Quote:

26Now the woman was a Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race. And she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter.

27And He was saying to her, "Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

Huon · 06-28-2010, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

6. Mark states in 6:5 that Jesus, who he had performed many miracles up to this point, was not able to perform miracles in his own town, and that his own people 'took offense at him'. This embarrassment also may be seen as evidence of some authenticity.

6:4 And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

A Christian comment of Mark 6:1-6
Our Lord's countrymen tried to prejudice the minds of people against him. Is not this the carpenter? Our Lord Jesus probably had worked in that business with his father. He thus put honour upon mechanics, and encouraged all persons who eat by the labour of their hands. It becomes the followers of Christ to content themselves with the satisfaction of doing good, although they are denied the praise of it. How much did these Nazarenes lose by obstinate prejudices against Jesus! May Divine grace deliver us from that unbelief, which renders Christ a savour of death, rather than of life to the soul. Let us, like our Master, go and teach cottages and peasants the way of salvation.

Note : nothing for urban people

dog-on · 06-28-2010, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

That sure sounds like possession, Huon.

Of course at the beginning of Mark, Jesus is possessed by the holy spirit and this holy spirit addresses people possessed with unclean spirits.

Even the very first "person" to notice that Jesus (or the spirit possessing him) was the "holy one of god" was an unclean spirit. It seems very much like in Mark's world, spirits possessed people. Mark seems to be the story of the son of god possessing Jesus and then leaving him on the cross.

A good possibility.

TedM · 06-28-2010, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

6. Mark states in 6:5 that Jesus, who he had performed many miracles up to this point, was not able to perform miracles in his own town, and that his own people 'took offense at him'. This embarrassment also may be seen as evidence of some authenticity.

6:4 And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

A Christian comment of Mark 6:1-6
Our Lord's countrymen tried to prejudice the minds of people against him. Is not this the carpenter? Our Lord Jesus probably had worked in that business with his father. He thus put honour upon mechanics, and encouraged all persons who eat by the labour of their hands. It becomes the followers of Christ to content themselves with the satisfaction of doing good, although they are denied the praise of it. How much did these Nazarenes lose by obstinate prejudices against Jesus! May Divine grace deliver us from that unbelief, which renders Christ a savour of death, rather than of life to the soul. Let us, like our Master, go and teach cottages and peasants the way of salvation.

Note : nothing for urban people

I don't think those explanations are satisfactory in the slightest. I would expect the Messiah to have no problem carrying out his miracles.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.