Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 06-28-2010, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Perhaps. Feel free to interact with my 11 points and provide your own explanations for them. Otherwise, thanks for sharing your opinions.

But, that is exactly what I have ALREADY done.

Your 11 speculative points all fail to take into account that the author of gMark claimed the disciples WITNESSED Jesus walking of the sea and that Peter, James and John WITNESSED the transfiguration of Jesus.

Both events are NOT within the realms of human activity but of MYTHS.

I give up. The only breakthrough here will occur if you exactly address them one by one and provide what you think is the best explanation and why.

aa5874 · 06-28-2010, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, that is exactly what I have ALREADY done.

Your 11 speculative points all fail to take into account that the author of gMark claimed the disciples WITNESSED Jesus walking of the sea and that Peter, James and John WITNESSED the transfiguration of Jesus.

Both events are NOT within the realms of human activity but of MYTHS.

I give up. The only breakthrough here will occur if you exactly address them one by one and provide what you think is the best explanation and why.

They are all speculations and MUST be dispensed with in ONE swoop.

It is completely futile to deal with speculation after speculation when the EVIDENCE that the Jesus of Mark was a God/man is extremely clear.

The MARKAN Jesus walked on water. That is not speculation. It was witnessed by the disciples. We have EVIDENCE the Markan Jesus was portrayed as a Spirit.

You cannot re-construct your Markan Jesus without ALL the DATA in gMark.

Look at the DATA. Tell the TRUTH. Was not Jesus walking on the sea in gMark?

Mr 6:49 -

Quote:

But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out...

Tell the truth about Jesus of Mark. He was a sea-water walker.

The truth will set you free.

dog-on · 06-29-2010, 12:21 AM

Bottom line is that Mark wrote a great drama. It has all of the necessary elements to keep the audience glued to their seats.

Ted, you need to deal with this obvious fact, before trying to turn Pinnochio into a little boy and trying to figure out the size of his actual shoes.

Clivedurdle · 06-29-2010, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Mark's Jesus was extremely offensive to the Pharisees.

Please compare

Quote:

The Pharisees (Hebrew: Perushim) emerged as a distinct group shortly after the Maccabaean revolt, around 165–160 bc; they were, it is generally believed, spiritual descendants of the Hasideans. The Pharisees emerged as a party of laymen and scribes in contradistinction to the Sadducees, i.e., the party of the high priesthood that had traditionally provided the sole leadership of the Jewish people. The basic difference that led to the split between the Pharisees and the Sadducees lay in their respective attitudes toward the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) and the problem of finding in it answers to questions and bases for decisions about contemporary legal and religious matters arising under circumstances far different from those of the time of Moses. In their response to this problem, the Sadducees, on the one hand, refused to accept any precept as binding unless it was based directly on the Torah, i.e., the Written Law. The Pharisees, on the other hand, believed that the Law that God gave to Moses was twofold, consisting of the Written Law and the Oral Law, i.e., the teachings of the prophets and the oral traditions of the Jewish people. Whereas the priestly Sadducees taught that the written Torah was the only source of revelation, the Pharisees admitted the principle of evolution in the Law; men must use their reason in interpreting the Torah and applying it to contemporary problems. Rather than blindly follow the letter of the Law even if it conflicted with reason or conscience, the Pharisees harmonized the teachings of the Torah with their own ideas or found their own ideas suggested or implied in it. They interpreted the Law according to its spirit; when in the course of time a law had been outgrown or superseded by changing conditions, they gave it a new and more acceptable meaning, seeking scriptural support for their actions through a ramified system of hermeneutics. It was due to this progressive tendency of the Pharisees that their interpretation of the Torah continued to develop and has remained a living force in Judaism.

The Pharisees were not primarily a political party but a society of scholars and pietists. They enjoyed a large popular following, and in the New Testament they appear as spokesmen for the majority of the population. Around 100 bc a long struggle ensued as the Pharisees tried to democratize the Jewish religion and remove it from the control of the Temple priests. The Pharisees asserted that God could and should be worshiped even away from the Temple and outside Jerusalem. To the Pharisees, worship consisted not in bloody sacrifices—the practice of the Temple priests—but in prayer and in the study of God’s law. Hence the Pharisees fostered the synagogue as an institution of religious worship, outside and separate from the Temple. The synagogue may thus be considered a Pharasaic institution since the Pharisees developed it, raised it to high eminence, and gave it a central place in Jewish religious life.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...55129/Pharisee

One of the more fascinating things from the Gospels are the propaganda anti Pharisee position of Jesus and the assumption that Pharisees and Saducees are both law following hypocrites, when the behaviours of Jesus, breaking the sabbath and going with publicans are Pharisee attitudes.

Going back to the earlier point, it is impossible for people two thousand years ago and today to have similar world views.

Basic stuff - the mythical Jesus did not know about chocolate, let alone quantum mechanics and walking on the moon. The English language did not exist.

spin · 06-29-2010, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Why does speculation help in determining the truth in gMark?

You must also agree that speculation resolves nothing in gMark.

It's called testing a hypothesis. We know that Mark either is
1. creating a fictional Jesus with full knowledge
2. passing along traditions of a fictional Jesus with or without knowing he is fictional
3. passing along traditions of a real Jesus
4. some combination of the above.

Each criteria would come with a different set of expectations and evidence.
Speculation can help in testing which scenario(s) a hypothesis best fits

Excluding the first and fourth for the moment, I can see no way for a person to see any difference between real and not real. It's just information in/information out. Did Tertullian or those after him see any difference between a real person in the past and Ebion?

spin

show_no_mercy · 06-29-2010, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The exception: I'm curious about the Barrabbas theory. Why do you call him another Jesus? While "son of the father" is mildly interesting, why do you place so much importance on it? tia

In some manuscripts of Matthew, the guy's name is Jesus Barabba.

This makes sense of Pilate's question: "Who do you want me to release? Jesus called Son of the Father (BarAbba) or Jesus called Christ?"

The Christ (according to Christians) is the son of the father.

TedM · 06-29-2010, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Mark's Jesus was extremely offensive to the Pharisees.

Please compare

Quote:

The Pharisees (Hebrew: Perushim) emerged as a distinct group shortly after the Maccabaean revolt, around 165–160 bc; they were, it is generally believed, spiritual descendants of the Hasideans. The Pharisees emerged as a party of laymen and scribes in contradistinction to the Sadducees, i.e., the party of the high priesthood that had traditionally provided the sole leadership of the Jewish people. The basic difference that led to the split between the Pharisees and the Sadducees lay in their respective attitudes toward the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) and the problem of finding in it answers to questions and bases for decisions about contemporary legal and religious matters arising under circumstances far different from those of the time of Moses. In their response to this problem, the Sadducees, on the one hand, refused to accept any precept as binding unless it was based directly on the Torah, i.e., the Written Law. The Pharisees, on the other hand, believed that the Law that God gave to Moses was twofold, consisting of the Written Law and the Oral Law, i.e., the teachings of the prophets and the oral traditions of the Jewish people. Whereas the priestly Sadducees taught that the written Torah was the only source of revelation, the Pharisees admitted the principle of evolution in the Law; men must use their reason in interpreting the Torah and applying it to contemporary problems. Rather than blindly follow the letter of the Law even if it conflicted with reason or conscience, the Pharisees harmonized the teachings of the Torah with their own ideas or found their own ideas suggested or implied in it. They interpreted the Law according to its spirit; when in the course of time a law had been outgrown or superseded by changing conditions, they gave it a new and more acceptable meaning, seeking scriptural support for their actions through a ramified system of hermeneutics. It was due to this progressive tendency of the Pharisees that their interpretation of the Torah continued to develop and has remained a living force in Judaism.

The Pharisees were not primarily a political party but a society of scholars and pietists. They enjoyed a large popular following, and in the New Testament they appear as spokesmen for the majority of the population. Around 100 bc a long struggle ensued as the Pharisees tried to democratize the Jewish religion and remove it from the control of the Temple priests. The Pharisees asserted that God could and should be worshiped even away from the Temple and outside Jerusalem. To the Pharisees, worship consisted not in bloody sacrifices—the practice of the Temple priests—but in prayer and in the study of God’s law. Hence the Pharisees fostered the synagogue as an institution of religious worship, outside and separate from the Temple. The synagogue may thus be considered a Pharasaic institution since the Pharisees developed it, raised it to high eminence, and gave it a central place in Jewish religious life.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...55129/Pharisee

One of the more fascinating things from the Gospels are the propaganda anti Pharisee position of Jesus and the assumption that Pharisees and Saducees are both law following hypocrites, when the behaviours of Jesus, breaking the sabbath and going with publicans are Pharisee attitudes.

Going back to the earlier point, it is impossible for people two thousand years ago and today to have similar world views.

Basic stuff - the mythical Jesus did not know about chocolate, let alone quantum mechanics and walking on the moon. The English language did not exist.

Thanks for the info. While it may be going to0 far to say that "when the behaviours of Jesus, breaking the sabbath and going with publicans are Pharisee attitudes.", the pharisees are not as strict as the Saducees. My view is modified now. It may be that he was NOT highly offensive to Pharisees as a group. He maybe only offended some pharisees who disagreed with his own personal interpretation. Mark also names the Herodians and Saducees as out to get Jesus too. IF Jesus did cause a commotion of some kind in the temple, that would be my guess as to the final straw, as it would have really been offensive to the Saducees who believed religious life should center around the temple, and would likely have been hostile to rogue preachers.

TedM · 06-29-2010, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The exception: I'm curious about the Barrabbas theory. Why do you call him another Jesus? While "son of the father" is mildly interesting, why do you place so much importance on it? tia

In some manuscripts of Matthew, the guy's name is Jesus Barabba.

This makes sense of Pilate's question: "Who do you want me to release? Jesus called Son of the Father (BarAbba) or Jesus called Christ?"

The Christ (according to Christians) is the son of the father.

What version are you using? The NASB (usually fairly literal) has this:

Quote:

16At that time they were holding a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas.

17So when the people gathered together, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?"

18For he knew that because of envy they had handed Him over.

19While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him a message, saying, "Have nothing to do with that righteous Man; for last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him."

20But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to put Jesus to death.

21But the governor said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas."

22Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said, "Crucify Him!"

show_no_mercy · 06-29-2010, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

In some manuscripts of Matthew, the guy's name is Jesus Barabba.

This makes sense of Pilate's question: "Who do you want me to release? Jesus called Son of the Father (BarAbba) or Jesus called Christ?"

The Christ (according to Christians) is the son of the father.

What version are you using? The NASB (usually fairly literal) has this:

Quote:

16At that time they were holding a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas.

17So when the people gathered together, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?"

18For he knew that because of envy they had handed Him over.

19While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him a message, saying, "Have nothing to do with that righteous Man; for last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him."

20But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to put Jesus to death.

21But the governor said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas."

22Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said, "Crucify Him!"

Did you bother clicking the link?

TedM · 06-29-2010, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

What version are you using? The NASB (usually fairly literal) has this:

Did you bother clicking the link?

I read the whole thing. That's why I modified my position on it.

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

06-29-2010, 12:21 AM	#73
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Bottom line is that Mark wrote a great drama. It has all of the necessary elements to keep the audience glued to their seats. Ted, you need to deal with this obvious fact, before trying to turn Pinnochio into a little boy and trying to figure out the size of his actual shoes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.