Maklelan

I quite disagree.

It is an allusion. I already stated this.

Again evidence is being rejected based solely on the assumption that someone would have done a certain thing in a certain circumstance.

Maklelan

So the authors of the synoptic gospels didn't at all tailor their narratives to their own context and rhetorical goals? Curious. That's not what the evidence shows. For instance, Matthew says that the Law of Moses needs to be followed until the heavens and the earth pass away. Luke says it was in effect until John the Baptist. Those are two quite distinct worldviews. Matthew and Luke present two quite distinct and irreconcilable lineages for Jesus. Matthew and Luke have a birth narrative that has Jesus conceived by the Holy Ghost. Mark says nothing of any abnormal circumstance surrounding the birth. Are they really the same Jesus?

That has nothing to do with my argument. There's is nothing in my argument that at all requires (or suggests that) the mythos of the New Testament to be true. You keep fabricating these strawmen every time it becomes clear your conclusions simply don't match the evidence.

That's a lie. This entire endeavor is an enormous waste of time on your part, but you seem happy to do it.

And you are simply making the assumption that these sources are reporting on the primeval Christian ideologies, even though they're written centuries later. Mark is the earliest Christian text in existence, and there's simply nothing in Mark that at all suggests Christ's conception and birth was anything other than perfectly normal.

aa5874

Your Presumption that gMark's was born is highly illogical. If Jesus was really born HOW was he WITNESSED as He WALKED on the sea?

ANSWER ME, if you can.

In gMark 6.48-50, it does state that the disciples WITNESSED Jesus as he WALKED on the sea.

They ALL SAW him.

It just RIDICULOUS to assume the author of gMark is writing about an actual born human being and actual historical events.

The author was clearly writing a Myth Fable.

In gMark 6.50, it does state that Jesus IDENTIFIED himself as the SEA-WATER walker.

Jesus said IT IS I be NOT afraid.

Those are NOT the words of a HUMAN being. They are words found in MYTH Fables.

It is ABSURD to PRESUME that Jesus in gMark was born.

It is NOT known for the ENTIRE EXTANT documented history of Mankind that any person born, naturally or even delivered by Caesarean section, can WALK on the sea and was WITNESSED by anyone.

It is horribly ridiculous to assume gMark's Jesus was born when the author PUBLICLY DECLARED and Circulated in WRITING that Jesus ACTED and was WITNESSED in NON-HUMAN activities.

gMark is a PUBLICLY CIRCULATED MYTH FABLE that people of antiquity believed just like the very same Greeks and Romans who BELIEVED many, many Myth Fables like Romulus and Remus the Myth Founders of Rome.

gMark is a DOCUMENTED MYTH FABLE of a Non-human character that was a SEA-WATER Walker that TRANSFIGURED with the Resurrected dead which was BELIEVED in antiquity and even today.

Maklelan

Of course, the author never suggests, implies, or states otherwise. Which is the illogical conclusion?

Here you infer based on Jesus' being represented walking on water that the author––although he nowhere suggests it––could not have understood Jesus to have been born normally. Of course, you first have to show that such an act could not be thought of as performed by a being born under normal circumstances. You can do no such thing. It's just an assumption you imply is self-evident. The fact that Peter is made to walk on water in Matthew shows that at least he certainly did not consider it unimaginable that a human could be endowed with divine power to do just that. Perhaps we now must assume that Peter was also not born of human parents. Perhaps you will argue that because Mark doesn't mention Peter doing it, he must have felt it was impossible for Peter because he was a human. This is a rather ridiculous way to account for the difference, but we can look to other texts from Judaism and the Greco-Roman world to see that such an act was not at all outside the realm of possibility for figures thought to be endowed with some kind of divinity or divine authority. In the stories of the exodus and the conquest we have examples of a sea and a river, respectively, being parted so that numerous humans could cross unmolested. The notion that parting a sea was ok, but walking over the water would have been out of the question is hardly reasonable. We also have the story in 2 Kgs 6:1–7 of Elisha making an iron axe head float. Certainly an iron axe head is not so much more privileged in the Hellenistic Jewish worldview that it can be made to float, but humans are prohibited from doing it. Perhaps the axe head also had a miraculous birth. Note Dio Chrysostom's comments about Xerxes:

No, Xerxes didn't cross the Hellespont in that fashion, but for the rhetoric of Dio's time period, it was certainly not inconceivable for him to represent a human performing divine acts. On the other hand, there's no indication in any text I'm aware of from within a century in either direction of the first century CE that only phantoms could ever be conceived of as walking on water.

No, you answer me if you can.

Maybe you need to spend a little more time trying to understand how the ancient Mediterranean conceived of the divide between the divine and the human.

Clearly.

Human beings are not allowed to say, "Don't be afraid, it's me"?

No, what's absurd is your glaring ignorance of Mark's literary context.

And that fact has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not first century Judeans could have thought it possible.

And the notion of a human being becoming divine not only pervaded Greco-Roman period Judaism, but the rest of the Greco-Roman literature in general. You seriously do not appear to know jack about the literature of this time period.

I don't know whether to be more shocked by your evasive belligerence or your staggering ignorance.

aa5874

Your post is just a load of BS. It is clear to me that you most likely accept Documented Myth Fables as history just like the Greeks and Romans of the 1st century.

Please get real. Don't you know any Physics? You MUST know a little Science if you want to understand that the NT are most likely a Compilation of Myth Fables

1. The Red Sea could NOT have parted as described in the Bible. It is virtually impossible that WATER can SEPARATE with RODS (walking sticks--magic wands??).

2. An Iron AXE cannot FLOAT. The Specific Gravity of Iron is FAR Greater than Water.

3. No person BORN human can WALK on sea water. The Specific Gravity of the Human body does NOT allow SEA-WATER walking. Get a PHYSICS book and read about SPECIFIC Gravity.

4. A person cannot INSTANTLY change appearance. The anatomy and biology of the human body does NOT allow for Transfigurations.

It would appear to me that your knowledge of PHYSICS, BIOLOGY or BELIEF is closer to that of some early people.

gMark was DOCUMENTED and CIRCULATED in the Public with the claim Jesus was WITNESSED by the disciples as he WALKED on the Sea and Transfigured.

The author of gMark was PUBLICLY writing Myth Fables.

If you BELIEVE it is history then you are NO different to people of antiquity who BELIEVED Myth Fables.

Maklelan

You seem to think that saying that unilaterally exempts you from having to address any of my points. This is elementary school rhetoric you're engaged in, aa, not scholarship.

Not at all, and I've consistently painted a clear distinction between believing the texts, and acknowledging the beliefs of the authors of the texts. You continue to either misunderstand me or ignore me.

Again, you're confusing the academic standard that you can only understand these texts by trying to understand what their authors believed about what they were saying with the notion that I unilaterally believe the texts (something I've repeatedly denied). You either are not paying attention, are incredibly, incredibly dense, are lying through your teeth, or cannot understand what I'm saying because of cognitive dissonance. Whatever the case, you clearly could not carry an argument with a dump truck.

stephan huller

It would be interesting to see someone actually lose a debate with a dump truck

aa5874

Your POSTS are recorded. You are implying that gMark's Jesus was HUMAN and was BORN.

You BELIEVE gMark's Jesus was a perfectly normal human being CONTRARY to the written statements in the very same gMark.

It is NOT perfectly normal for people to WITNESS a human being as he WALKED on the sea and Transfigured.

Such events are PERFECTLY NORMAL in MYTH FABLES.

gMark is a PERFECTLY NORMAL MYTH FABLE as normal as Marcion's Myth Fable of a PHANTOM that had NO BIRTH and NO FLESH but could do the very same things as Jesus in the 15th year of the REIGN of Tiberius when it came DIRECTLY from heaven.

Justin Matyr admitted that the Jesus story was NO different to the Myth Fables of the Greeks and Romans.

I do not accept a SEA-WATER WALKER that Transfigured as normal.

stephan huller

I think aa engages in these discussions as if he were arguing with inanimate objects. One of many who thinking hearing what other people have to say gets in the way of making one's point. aa only comes to life when I recount my past exploits as a bachelor and I've been told not to do that any more. My suggestion is that we send attractive women to aa's home to carry on a debate while playing strip poker. Maybe then he'd listen to what the other side has to say

Maklelan

I meant carry (as in sustain) an argument in a dump truck. It's like carrying a tune in a bucket, only a bit more hyperbolic.