Kapyong

Gday,

Just "playing around" ?

So, there are only two possibilities, eh Ted?
1. true history
2. playing around

Seriously TedM - have you ever read any Star Wars fan-fiction? (Stories written by other people set in the Star Wars universe.)

Every single Star Wars fan-fic story says Luke's father was Darth Vader.

These books are clearly fiction, and could have said anything they wanted - yet every single one agrees that Darth was Luke's father.

Why is that TedM?
Does it mean Darth really WAS historically Luke's father?

Because after all, it's just "playing around", so they could have written anything - so therefore, following your argument above, that means it's history - right ?


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

It seems you see it in black-and-white. That there are only two choices :
1. true and accurate history
2. worthless and false fiction

But it's not that cut-and-dried.

The author could have been writing what he saw as theological truth - the essence of the story is true in some higher meaning. And indeed we see the author lifts episodes of Jesus life from the Tanakh - it's religion, theology - not history.

But it's certainly NOT just "playing around".

Anymore than Shakespeare's fiction is merely "playing around". Shakespeare expresses great truths about human nature, but it's not history - nor is it worthless fiction, just "playing around".

This stark dichotomy comes up all the time as a faulty argument for Jesus :

Either it's all true and accurate history, or it's worthless fiction - therefore Jesus existed.

K.

true story

My memory’s a little sketchy, but I recall Joseph B. Tyson arguing both ways. I believe he interprets ‘orderly’ to mean ‘properly told’, not in historical but in theological terms. He also thinks the preface belongs to the author of Acts, and not the author of Luke.

archibald

Whatever the uncertainties, it seems more likely that the writers believed in an HJ.

A few things suggest this. The short distance to supposed events, the indications that there were even earlier beliefs about the existence of the same figure and the fact that these are religious texts. Add to this that followers in eschatological cults have tended to follow actual people. One might also ask what evidence there is that these texts were ever seen as pure allegory or fiction. That is to say, that the central figure did not exist.

All in all, the argument that the writers did not believe in their central character's very existence is on the less likely side of the spectrum.

archibald

There appear to be persistent efforts to get this thread onto relationship matters! I can only suggest you join stephan (no euphemism intended) in the split-off Kenyan sex thread.

archibald

TedM,

Just to be clear, I do think it more likely that the writers believed in an HJ, but not because of the 'matching synoptics' thing in your OP. I personally don't see this as much of an indicator either way. :]

Solo

I think you have missed something very important here. The copying of the original wording had the function of enforcing the authoritative provenance of the edited/plagiarized document. It was Matthew's genius to present agenda which was essentially at cross-purposes to Mark's with the latter being preserved a witness to the same events, even though they are no longer are meaningful in the original theological framework. This it seems was a well thought-through and effective strategy in proselytizing, as Matthew surely achieved its purpose of overshadowing Mark. Jerome later thought that Mark was but an abridged Matthew. Augustine wrote in the Treatise on the Harmony of the Gospels that Mark was following Matthew closely like his attendant and epitomizer, and by himself [Mark] has little to record.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Your claim is ABSURD.

UNCERTAINTY cannot establish probabilities.

UNCERTAINTY establishes Speculation.

Again, you appear to be arguing against Doherty and not against the MJ argument.

The MJ argument is that Jesus did NOT exist as a man and could have ONLY been BELIEVED to have existed.

aa5874

Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

The Synoptic Gospels writers WROTE about the JESUS of FAITH NOT HJ.

HJ of Nazareth is a REJECTION of the Jesus of FAITH.

The HJ argument is AGAINST the data in the NT about the Jesus of Faith.

Please stop attempting to CONFUSE the issue.

In the HJ argument it is proposed that Jesus was ONLY a man and that CONTRARY to the Synoptics:

1. He was NOT fathered by a Ghost.

2. He was NOT on the Temple with Satan.

3. He did NOT heal incurable diseases with the Spit and Touch technique.

4. He did NOT walk on the sea.

5. He did NOT TRANSFIGURE.

6. He did NOT resurrect.

7. HE did NOT ASCEND in a cloud.

The claim that the Synoptic authors BELIEVED Jesus did exist does NOT, does NOT, disturb the claim that Jesus stories are NON-historical.

This is so basic.

Once the Jesus stories were NON-historical then the Synoptic authors could have BELIEVED they were writing history or KNEW they were writing fiction.

The Jesus stories in the Synoptics is ADMITTEDLY KNOWN FICTION.

The basis of the Synoptics Jesus story is a FICTITIOUS character that was FATHERED by a Ghost and who ACTED like a Ghost called Jesus.

TedM

No I gave another possibility of instructional allegory.


Do they quote large sections--I mean half of the material word for word? I suspect they did not. Rather, they probably took a few basic elements and added to it. I don't know and feel free to correct me.

Not the case with the synoptics which have large elements in common (I recall reading that 90% of Mark is in Matthew, and 50% is in Luke). Why would they do that Kapyong? Why did they need to preserve the original material so exactly?

Someone answered because it was the ONLY material out there. My reply to that is that perhaps it was the ONLY WRITTEN material out there and someone had to be first. Those that followed apparently felt the need to retain word for word the original material as though it served an important purpose that needed to be preserved.

What was that purpose? To preserve Star-Wars like fiction? Preposterous!. Rather, it was to either preserve theological truths, or perceived historical truths, or both. Isn't that freakin obvious? Can't you guys see this?