aa5874

You invent your own stories from a blank sheet of paper and then BELIEVE that they are historical accounts.

All you do is DISCREDIT the author of gMark and still accept gMark as history without corroboration.

Your position is Most contradictory. Your position is far worse than inerrantists.

The inerrantists BELIEVE gMark is true but you will ONLY accept what you BELIEVE is plausible while maintaing the author wrote Fiction.

You seem to have failed to take into account that ALL of the Canon was plausible in antiquity.

Diogenes the Cynic

I don't believe Mark is historical. Why do you keep saying I do?

aa5874

I must try and get a list of all the things you deny or don't believe.

There is just something rather stange about your arguments.

At one time you seem to be arguing that gMark's Jesus is historical now you say you don't believe gMark is historical.

At one you seem to be saying stories in gMark may be historical but now you say gMark is NOT historical.

You are just all over the place.

Please give me a list of what you believe about gMark.

gMark's Jesus was the Son of God that walked on water and transfigured. That is NOT belief that is gMark's Jesus.

Sheshbazzar

The Sanhedrin was the Supreme Bet Din Court of Israel, empowerd with the authority to Judge whatever case was brought before them, and to render their authoritative 'Decision' (Deut 17:8-13) mishpat ='which is judged' ('decided') Done deal.

If they determined and declared that what he had said constituted the crime of blasphemy, that was the end of the matter.

There was no authorized higher Court of Law among men, for men of Israel to appeal to.
This authority to render final judgment and decision had by the words of The Law, been committed into their hands.

Nothing guaranteed that their 'judgments' and their 'decisions' would always be right or serve justice, only that they were to be final. (Deut 17:11)

If The Sanhedrin decreed a thing as being blasphemy. Then in the eyes of The Law, and of the people of the nation of Israel subject under that Law, it was blasphemy. finis.

Diogenes the Cynic

What story in Mark have I said is historical?

I quoted Maurice Casey as saying a couple of the exorcism stories were literally true, but I didn't say I necessarily agreed with that. I said I think Mark might reflect some actual regional practices, but I mean that in a general way, not as an endorsement of specific stories.

For what it's worth, I think the entirety of Mark's passion is his own invention (or at least, an adaptation of previous inventions).

Diogenes the Cynic

The Talmud does not support this, but for the sake of argument, even if the Sanhedrin had that authority, it would never have occurred to them to call a claim to be the Davidic heir "blasphemy." There was simply nothing blasphemous about it. They had no concept or notion of that being a claim to personal divinity. It's actually a contradiction in terms to say the Jewish Messiah is a literal "son of God." The Jewish Messiah is, by strict definition, the seed of David.

aa5874

You just said that you DON'T BELIEVE gMark is historical so it does NOT matter what happens in FICTION stories.

Superman can FLY but it does NOT matter--it is Fiction.

Jesus the Son of God was accused on Blasphemy--it does NOT matter--it is a fiction story in gMark.

What is your argument--you are NOT making sense. It is completely unreasonable to expect a Fiction story to contain historically accurate information.

Once you don't believe gMark is historical then it is all over. You have done what all MJers wanted you to do.

You have shown that there is NO credible source to argue for an historical Jesus.

Sheshbazzar

Diogenes. The story is what it is. It is fictional, and does not have to conform to any precepts or teachings of the Talmud.

The Torah's injunctions and continuing authority of the Temple priesthood to render such judgments in matters of controversy in Deuteronomy 17 is quite apparent.

The Bet Din which the Sanhedrin were in charge of was required by the words ("THOU SHALT" positive commandment of the Law) and instituted within and by the authority of 'The Law of Moses', which as it is well known, was the rule in the government and in the conduct of Jewish public affairs in first century CE Jerusalem.

For -the sake of the story- this is the judgment they (allegedly) rendered, and as such it would have been FINAL and without any recourse.
That does not entail that any of this fictional account ever happened, so it does not need to conform to every detail of a real trial.
In fact the whole point of -the story- of this 'trial' is that it was a 'Kangaroo Court' rendering a wholly unwarranted and unjust sentence.

Diogenes the Cynic

I know all that. I have enumerated the many procedural and legal inaccuracies of the trial myself. The blasphemy conviction, for me, makes the fiction obvious and indisputable.

That does not mean Mark himself thought the Messianic claim was a claim to Godhood. Mark clearly delineates between Jesus and God as different entities with different minds and wills.

Sheshbazzar

That doesn't make either Jezuz or Gawd real, or even prove that the unknown writer of this myth believed that there was any Gawd, or in this mythical Jezuz character.