Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
05-11-2012, 12:39 AM | #81 | |||||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Examine gMark 15. 13-14 Quote:
Quote:
Pilate the Roman governor EXONERATED Jesus but crucified him because the Jews wanted Jesus dead. But the very opposite happened to Antigonus--he was beheaded by Antony because the Jews showed GOOD-WILL towards Antigonus and Not to Herod. Jesus was REJECTED by the Jews in gMark . Antigonus was ACCEPTED by the Jews in Josephus. The Jesus story is based on Hebrew Scripture NOT Antigonus. |
|||||
05-11-2012, 01:26 AM | #82 | ||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
Quote:
1, Antigonus is a historical figure, the last King and High Priest of the Jews, bound to a stake/cross, mocked and flogged and slain/beheaded, by the Roman Marc Antony, in 37 b.c. 2, The JC story is not history. It is a pseudo-historical story. A pseudo-historical story reflecting Jewish/Hasmonean history - plus - OT interpretation and mythological elements. To maintain, as you seem to be doing, that the JC story has nothing to do with Jewish history - that is pure assumption. |
||||||
05-11-2012, 06:41 AM | #83 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 738
|
Quote:
In all your comments about "oral tradition" you do not make any distinction as to what you are talking about. In fact, it seems like you conflate it all together. You seem to have this idea that for 40 years or so people told more or less the same idea and then one day, Mark had the bright idea to write down a story. In reality, there is a high degree of interplay between oral and literary traditions. We even see in Paul's writings remnants of a preceding literary tradition in the Christian tradition. |
|
05-11-2012, 09:22 AM | #84 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
The context of Tacitus makes absolutely no sense. But we see things don't make any sense in Josephus or even in Philo. Yet there are those who would hold fast to them without considering the context. All they do is see the word Christ and their lights go on. Makes no sense at all.
Quote:
|
|
05-11-2012, 09:32 AM | #85 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
|
Quote:
It was not the same idea, but the cores matched the real events and man. you do understand that the illiterate passed on legends and OT biblical text orally?? You also understand that there were many legends of jesus and they all changed beased of what geographic location you heard the legend. you would also know that there were earlier written sources that no longer exist, that we have but a small fraction of what used to be. You had different communities each with their own traditions and sources for their personal legend of jesus, oral tradition was the most common of all tradition's, even gmark's author or scribe used a combination of sources, Paul would have mainly relied on oral tradition for his legend. most people were illiterate, most people used oral traditions. plain and simple. |
||
05-11-2012, 09:36 AM | #86 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
|
Quote:
the m,ain point you may or may not be missing is this. oral tradition "can" be accurate almost word for word when within one culture and one religion. when you have cross culture oral tradition like we hade here, its a little more then fluid. There is no reason to maintain any sort of accuracy. thats why early on there were so many different ways the movement was going. we are only left with teh roman version of events that amounts to jesus direct enemies telling the legend of jesus, accurate?? no way in hell. but that doesnt discount a historical core. |
|
05-11-2012, 09:38 AM | #87 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
|
Quote:
Key point were dealing with a highly illiterate culture |
|
05-11-2012, 11:01 AM | #88 | |||||||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
1. The Jesus of gMark was NOT beheaded. 2. The Jesus of gMark was crucified because of the Jews. 3. The crucifixion scene of Jesus in gMark was LIFTED from Hebrew Scripture, and specifically Psalms. 4. The Jesus story in gMark is a product of Multiple sources of antiquity including the books of the Prophets and the Works of Josephus. 5. In gMark, Jesus did NOT even want the Jews to know he was the Christ until the day he was crucified. You are the one who have been Myopic and refuse to take into account that the gMark story was derived from MULTIPLE sources. |
|||||||
05-11-2012, 11:06 AM | #89 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
Spin, I don't think that's the point. What I was trying to bring out was that apparently the doctrine of the trinity, which is not described in the NT emerged in the 4th century (when it would seem "Tertullian" was written) AND that it appears highly fishy that it was an original doctrine when according to the Christian narrative it took FOUR HUNDRED years for councils of clergymen to work out what is a PILLAR of their religion that presumably would have existed through the tradition of the apostles or in the NT texts themselves, but isn't. That's all I was trying to suggest.
Quote:
|
||
05-11-2012, 11:15 AM | #90 | ||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
Quote:
The JC story, as in gMark, is a story "derived from MULTIPLE sources".... Great - so therefore - you cannot rule out Jewish/Hasmonean history - as though it is not relevant to that gMark JC story. Multiple sources.... |
||||||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|