aa5874

What!!! The NT Canon is NOT heretical and so gMark could not have described Jesus as an ordinary man with a human father.

Please, please, please. You ought to know that Church writers have identified the heretics and the Heresy that Jesus was an ordinary man with a human father.

You are just providing erroneous information.

In gMark the disciples believed Jesus was a Spirit when he was WALKING on the sea and they began to scream.

Mark 6 Jesus identified himself in gMark as the sea water walker and he would have PASSED them by, he would have kept on walking on the sea, if the disciples did not scream.

It is completely erroneous that gMark's Jesus was an ordinary man or that gMark is an heretical writing.

Now, look!! In gMark!!! Jesus is going to transfigure!!!

Mark 9:2 - Go figure.

It was the transfigured Jesus that was crucified in gMark.

What kind of "man" was Jesus?

A transfigured sea-water-walker.

Now, you know the story in gMark.

The transfigured sea-water-walker was raised from the dead.

Mark 16:6 -
HJ is a false dichotomy.

How can there be an historical Jesus without any history of him?

By using logical fallacies.

J-D

Any argument which says
'Church writers say Mark is not heretical
'Therefore, Mark is not heretical'
would be an example of the fallacy of argument from authority.

J-D

It's not a dichotomy at all, so it can't be a false dichotomy.

However, any argument which says
'Either everything in the New Testament is true or else everything in the New Testament is false
'Not everything in the New Testament is true
'Therefore, everything in the New Testament is false'
would be an example of the fallacy of false dichotomy.

Diogenes the Cynic

This is silly. The Canon is an artificially imposed paradigm which has no bearing on historical-critical readings of the books indivudually or in comparison. The authors of those books had no idea they were writing for any Canon, never heard of the New Testament and never agreed to any orthodoxy.
Mark says the disciples thought Jesus was a ghost, but clearly he was not. Mark is adoptionist. His Jesus gets imbued with the Holy Spirit at his baptism, and then the spirit splits on him at the cricifixion. Mark does not claim or imply that Jesus was God or the offspring of God. God allowed him to do magic, but God wasn't Jesus. Mark makes it clear that God and Jesus are different entities, both in 14:36 ("...take this cup from me...not my will but yours...") and in 15:34 ("Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?").
Transfigured into the "son of man," - the Messiah, not into God.
A transfigured Jesus who was abandoned by God on the cross.
None of this indicates that Mark thought Jesus was God. Mark thinks Jesus was chosen by God (as an adult) to be the Messiah, imbues him with the Spirit, speaks through him, does miracles through him, etc., but he does not think Jesus is God, or he would not have said that Jesus and God had separate wills or that God abandoned Jesus on the cross.

This is a bit far afield from the point anyway. Mark's reliability per se is not part of the criteria for establishing probabilities of historicity.
There is an irony here in that you are not only misusing the phrase "false dichotomy," but are actually engaging in it yourself with your all or nothing declarations about the NT.

aa5874

Do you see your own False dichotomies. They are so blatant.

Once the author of gMark claimed Jesus was walking on the sea and was WITNESSED by the disciples then gMark's Jesus is NOT human but only appears in the form of man.

The disciples in gMark WITNESSED Jesus acting outside the realm of human beings.

The mere claim that Jesus was imbued with the Holy Ghost cannot make an ordinary man walk on water and WITNESSED walking on water.

The Jesus of gMark acted as non-human.

An ordinary man claiming to be filled with Holy Ghost cannot transfigure and WITNESSED to be transfigured.


[ Please, please, please. Just look at what the centurion claimed after Jesus said "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"

Mark 15.39 It was those very words which made the centurion realize Jesus was TRULY the Son of God in gMark.

Again you provide more erroneous assertions. I would have at least expected that you would have made claims that are supported by gMark

Jesus TAUGHT his disciples that he would be killed and RESURRECT on the THIRD DAY.

Mark 9.31Examine Mark 16.6.

Mark 16.6 It is clearly that gMark's was NOT an ordinary man. The author implied Jesus was the Son of God and wrote that Jesus acted OUTSIDE the realm of humans.

You simply don't even understand the Jesus story in gMark.

It is simply this.

The Jews, and even the very disciples of Jesus, thought he was human, even though he supposedly did phenomenal miracles but found out that he was NOT human at all when he was RAISED from the day on the THIRD day just as he predicted.

The Jesus character in gMark was not human but was a product of Myth.

HJ is a False Dichotomy.

How can you have an "historical" Jesus and no history of him?

By employing logical fallacies.

mountainman

false dichotomy

note - minor edit with the example from wiki

mountainman

In any other words, by presenting fiction as historical truth.

Ardashir did it in the 3rd century. Constantine did it in the 4th century. Muhammad did it in the 7th century. All had recently risen to military supremacy. Religion is true for the common people, false for the wise, very useful for the ruler. What's new under the sun?

Diogenes the Cynic

"Son of God," for Mark (as it is in the OT) was just an honorific for the Messiah (actually for Davidic kings in general). It did not indicate a belief that Jesus was the literal offspring of God.

aa5874

Again, you employ logical fallacies because gMark's Jesus did things that were not humanly possible and you have ALREADY admitted that the NT is NOT historically reliable.

And, secondly it is also illogical to assume that gMark's Jesus story is not about the character called Jesus Christ of the very same NT in which gMark is Canonised.

It must be that it would have been rather illogical for the Church to have Canonised a KNOWN Heretical gMark.

For example, you would appear to be quite illogical if you claimed Pilate in gMark was NOT Pilate in gMatthew and gLuke because there is no description of Pilate in gMark.

In gMark, we ONLY see the name "Pilate", Not even as Pontius, not even as Governor or Procurator, just Pilate. But Pilate in gMark is accepted as the same Pilate throughout the entire Canon.

Any description of Pilate in any writings of antiquity, in or outside the NT, can be reasonable attributed to Pilate in gMark.

Pilate in Josephus and Philo is the same as Pilate in gMark.

This is the manner in which Pilate was introduced in gMark.

Mark 15.1 Who was Pilate in gMark? Are there any other books in the NT that mention and described Pilate?

Of course. There are gMatthew 27.2 and gLuke 3.1.

Who was Jesus in gMark? Are there any other books in the NT that mention and described Jesus?

Of course. There is gMatthew 1.18-20, gLuke 1.26-35, and John 1.

In the NT Canon, Pilate was Governor of Judea in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius and Jesus was the Child of the Holy Ghost, the Word that was God, and the Creator of heaven and earth, and a TRANSFIGURED sea-water-walker who was raised from the dead.

How could there be an "historical Jesus" without any history of him?


Only by employing logical fallacies.

J-D

Nobody apart from you can see them, so they can't be blatant.It is, as a matter of fact, not true that any ordinary human can walk on water.

But since there is, as a matter of fact, no God, it is also not true that God can walk on water.

However, the claim that a human being imbued with the Holy Ghost can walk on water, although contrary to fact, is not contrary to logic. Although the claim is factually false, it is not logically fallacious.