Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-01-2012, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Mark does not think Jesus is God, he just doesn't know what "blasphemy" means.

What total absolute illogical statement when the word BLASPHEMY is found in gMark??

Mark 14:64 KJV

Quote:

Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death....

Why are you continuing to DENY the ACTUAL verses that show the author referred to Jesus as the Son of God??

This is most remarkable. You have ZERO use for evidence. You want people to believe whatever you say.

This is most astonishing.

Please, please, please, you need to take some time out. You have lost all semblance of reason.

Quote:

Mark 3:11 KJV
And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried , saying , Thou art the Son of God.

Mark 5:7 KJV
And cried with a loud voice, and said , What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.

Mark 15:39 KJV
And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out , and gave up the ghost , he said , Truly this man was the Son of God.

graymouser · 05-01-2012, 01:44 PM

I don't mean to be rude on the thread, but aa5874 has been on my ignore list for years now, and I don't intend to respond to any of his posts on this thread. Diogenes' responses here appear to be on point though.

Horatio Parker · 05-01-2012, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

The basic premise of mythicism is that Jesus was invented explicitly as a god-man. Yet the Gospel of Mark - the one Gospel that, for mythicists, is where the "invention" took place - does not explicitly state this. My argument is that mythicists are actually reading John back into Mark and the Pauline epistles, which to my mind make more sense if they are about a crucified and resurrected messiah.

Mythicists believe there was no historical Jesus; no corporeal, empirical Jesus of Nazareth. Human, God or hybrid, he did not exist.

I think you're defining MJ in such a way as to create a theological tangle where there is none.

Quote:

A messiah does not "have to" be God incarnate - in fact, the general assumption was that he would not be. It's something that no one would assume, since it's not part of the pre-Christian idea of the messiah at all. As I see it, the rising Christology, particularly by the time John was written, was the first place where the two were actually combined.

OK, fine. How is that an argument for a historical Jesus?

sotto voce · 05-01-2012, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

I don't mean to be rude on the thread, but aa5874 has been on my ignore list for years now, and I don't intend to respond to any of his posts on this thread. Diogenes' responses here appear to be on point though.

So what had the Sanhedrin heard from the lips of Jesus as recorded in this gospel that was blasphemous?

Horatio Parker · 05-01-2012, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

A "messiah," generally speaking is any anointed king or priest or anyone specially chosen by God. The Persian King Cyrus is called "anointed" in the OT.

The Davidic Messiah was just a human king, the heir to the throne of David, who would be a military hero, not a god, not a demigod and not a redeemer of sins.

Which to my mind is not inconsistent with MJ.

That the idea of how the meaning of Jesus evolved as the early church grew is a separate question from that of his historical existence.

graymouser · 05-01-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Mythicists believe there was no historical Jesus; no corporeal, empirical Jesus of Nazareth. Human, God or hybrid, he did not exist.

I think you're defining MJ in such a way as to create a theological tangle where there is none.

No, mythicists believe that Jesus was an invented, mythical god-man. As Earl Doherty wrote, "Once upon a time, someone wrote a story about a man who was God." But that ISN'T what Mark wrote. Mark wrote a story about a man who was the Christ, the Son of Man, perhaps the Son of God - but who was not, himself, a divine being. The point is that any semi-coherent mythicist theory fails precisely because Jesus seems to have started as Christ and become God, a specific Christological progression, that is not expected. The mythological stories don't generally progressively elevate the divine hero, he's a god from the get-go.

Quote:

OK, fine. How is that an argument for a historical Jesus?

It is consistent with what we would expect if there was a historical Jesus who was, over the course of time, elevated from being the messiah to being God incarnate. It is inconsistent with what we would expect if someone were writing a story about a mythical god-man, because the mythical character should have started at the higher, mythologized level. That's the whole premise of mythicism: that Jesus was invented specifically as a god-man.

aa5874 · 05-01-2012, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

I don't mean to be rude on the thread, but aa5874 has been on my ignore list for years now, and I don't intend to respond to any of his posts on this thread. Diogenes' responses here appear to be on point though.

Your very post proves that you READ my posts.

Why can't you admit that you cannot respond to my posts but SECRETLY read them??

I have ALWAYS said that the "Ignore" feature is a waste of time.

You will SEE what I post when people NOT on your Ignore list respond to my replies.

The Ignore feature makes NO sense.

aa5874 · 05-01-2012, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Mythicists believe there was no historical Jesus; no corporeal, empirical Jesus of Nazareth. Human, God or hybrid, he did not exist.

I think you're defining MJ in such a way as to create a theological tangle where there is none.

No, mythicists believe that Jesus was an invented, mythical god-man. As Earl Doherty wrote, "Once upon a time, someone wrote a story about a man who was God." But that ISN'T what Mark wrote. Mark wrote a story about a man who was the Christ, the Son of Man, perhaps the Son of God - but who was not, himself, a divine being. The point is that any semi-coherent mythicist theory fails precisely because Jesus seems to have started as Christ and become God, a specific Christological progression, that is not expected. The mythological stories don't generally progressively elevate the divine hero, he's a god from the get-go....

Your statement is erroneous. The very start of some versions of gMark COMMENCES by claiming Jesus was the Son of God.

Mark 1:1 KJV

Quote:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God

Nowhere in gMark is a human father assigned to the Jesus character.

Examine gMark 6.

Mark 6:3 KJV

Quote:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary , the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Examine gMark 5
Mark 5:7 KJV

Quote:

What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.

gMark's Jesus is implied to be the Son of Mary and the Son of God.

gMark's Jesus is a PERFECT Myth--God in the Flesh.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-01-2012, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

I don't mean to be rude on the thread, but aa5874 has been on my ignore list for years now, and I don't intend to respond to any of his posts on this thread. Diogenes' responses here appear to be on point though.

So what had the Sanhedrin heard from the lips of Jesus as recorded in this gospel that was blasphemous?

Nothing.

Horatio Parker · 05-01-2012, 05:57 PM

Quote:

No, mythicists believe that Jesus was an invented, mythical god-man. As Earl Doherty wrote, "Once upon a time, someone wrote a story about a man who was God." But that ISN'T what Mark wrote. Mark wrote a story about a man who was the Christ, the Son of Man, perhaps the Son of God - but who was not, himself, a divine being. The point is that any semi-coherent mythicist theory fails precisely because Jesus seems to have started as Christ and become God, a specific Christological progression, that is not expected. The mythological stories don't generally progressively elevate the divine hero, he's a god from the get-go.

Your assertions about Mark's intentions are speculation. And that is your basis for denying the plausibility of mythicism. Sorry, no sale.

My belief is the opposite. Granted, there may have been a historical Jesus. It's unlikely, considering the state of the evidence, but possible.

But mythical Jesus lives with or without HJ(many people don't seem to grasp this). And it is the mythical Jesus who progressed from the mysterious figure in Mark to the outright God incarnate in John.

Even if there were an HJ, he was dead and gone for generations before the Christological progression you speak of. And that progression involved a mythical Jesus.

Quote:

It is consistent with what we would expect if there was a historical Jesus who was, over the course of time, elevated from being the messiah to being God incarnate. It is inconsistent with what we would expect if someone were writing a story about a mythical god-man, because the mythical character should have started at the higher, mythologized level. That's the whole premise of mythicism: that Jesus was invented specifically as a god-man.

Again, you're in a theological tangle. What the Jesus character means to people has nothing to do with his historical existence.

The mythicist position is not required to supply plausible motives for Mark.

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

05-01-2012, 01:44 PM	#42
graymouser Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Collingswood, NJ Posts: 1,259	I don't mean to be rude on the thread, but aa5874 has been on my ignore list for years now, and I don't intend to respond to any of his posts on this thread. Diogenes' responses here appear to be on point though.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.