Casper

Giving MM his due, I understood him to be using the term with sarcasm. I could be way off though.

Ben C Smith

The idea that the whole Marcan gospel is supposed to be understood as post-resurrection has been footed before. (Perhaps someone can help with an exact reference, but I am almost sure I came across the idea somewhere in Robert M. Price, Deconstructing Jesus). The basic notion is that Mark the promised resurrection appearance in Mark is actually the call of the fisherman in chapter 1, making the whole gospel loop back on itself in some weird way.

Ben.

Clivedurdle

Highly intelligent comment by a poster here!

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=232875

mountainman

Thanks Casper.

It should serve to remind us that there was a day
in the history of this planet, upon which there was
ever only ONE SIDE to the opinion, and that was
the dominant Christian Hegemon.

The mobius nature of christian apologetics is essentually
very much akin to dealing with a two sided strip of papyri
with a christian twist, as the complete solution to the
universe.

To many apologists, and to many "advanced biblical
commentators" there is truly just the one straight
and narrow gate of historical possibilities which
surround the explication of the arising of christianity.

The explanation "by the Book" has intinsically only one
very narrow meaning, and all is held in place by the
twist of the HJ (Historical Jesus). All sides point to
this twisted HJ, in his twisted story, set within the
twisted and tortuous pathway of Eusebius' Historia.

It serves to highlight my insistent request to remove
the twist of the HJ from the solution and then test the
consequential results using both sides (the christian
and the non-christian historical references) of the
question in an objective fashion.

Ancient History has always been perceived by the
planet as involving christianity in the period 0-312.
This is the twist that needs to be removed, and
then the ground re-examined.

Consistency of the evidence will indicate whether
or not this avenue of enquiry is worthy of further
research and development. My initial research
indicates that a fourth century origin for the
emergence of early christianity is by no means
inadmissable in the field of ancient history.

OTOH, in the field of Biblical History, it is an
examination of the unexamined postulate of
the HJ, and this sort of thing is probably not
catered for within its structure.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Loomis

Thanks. I feel less insane now. I don't have Deconstructing Jesus. I gotta get it, it seems like a "must have."

If the original story really did have this twist then that would help explain why the story was so popular. (Assuming that it was popular.)

youngalexander

Perhaps a more apt analogy would be a Klein Bottle, or should we bring a String Theory Fishing Net with extra dimensions to bear?

Not so improbable, for the supernatural/natural interface must be based upon reality, as I am sure that any theist would agree.