Amaleq13

No problem. Apparently, I misunderstood the earlier discussion.

Given the rather appropriate nature of the literal meaning of Jesus' name, however, I wouldn't say the "theory" was entirely spoiled.

DramaQ

If by that you mean AMark probably compiled his story from existing anecdotes and a Passion Narrative, I would agree.

But I’m not convinced that his purpose was to give a “pedigree�? to a fledgling religion by connecting it with the old accepted one. To me, GMark does a pretty lame job of establishing its Jewish roots. (GMatt goes to much more pains to make a connection.) At times, AMark seems almost ignorant of Jewish traditions. And HIS Jesus brazenly tells his followers “to hell with the food laws�? (Pardon my paraphrasing) Mk 7:19.

I’m no expert, and have only been reading and studying this stuff for about 6 months. But the “feel�? I get (if any is possible) for AMark’s “purpose�? is that he’s trying to put a human face on a spiritual entity (the Christ). And THEN when he did that, a LOT of other people “adopted�? his human for their own spiritual entities. The Logos. The Messiah. The Redeemer. Etc.


Sorry about that Amaleq13. That would be my fault. This is my first attempt at starting a thread and I don’t think I did a good job of making my point clear.

I suspect this is about the end of it, though…

Amaleq13

No apology necessary. I was referring to a discussion that took place well before you joined. I got the impression from that discussion.