Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 12-31-2011, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maklelan

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, why are you arguing with me?

Because you're asserting absolutely asinine things about the composition of the New Testament, early Christian texts, and the origins of the Christian tradition.

Your claim is wholly unsubstantiated. I don't accept your opinion at all. Not even for a second

I have shown you the written statements in gMark 6.48-49 and Mark 9.2-5 and they are FABRICATED, or absolute fiction.

I have mentioned over 12 fabricated events in gMark.

gMark's Jesus is a Myth Fable of a Phantom, a character that apeared human but acted as a Spirit.

stephan huller · 12-31-2011, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Maklelan came to this forum to argue with the NO.1 myther

The number 1 myther? Do you mean you? Why would anyone be looking for you, you don't even have a real name. He might as well be searching for Donald Duck.

Toto · 01-01-2012, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

..

Well, why are you arguing with me?
....

Because:

Maklelan · 01-01-2012, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Let me ask Maklelan about a statement he made in another thread here that time dealing with another f--- namely:

Quote:

Jesus was unquestionably known as the Christ from the very beginning.

Aren't you hanging a lot based on 14:61 - 62? I see nothing in the main body of the Gospel of Mark that would indicate any clear proof as to Jesus identifying himself as the Jewish messiah.

There is Mark 8:29–30 as well. Mark also uses Old Testament texts in chapter 1 to refer to Jesus that originally referenced an anointed one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And even this statement in Mark is peculiar because (a) it implies that Luke modified the 'certainly yes' answer to something less than 'certainly yes' and (b) the paltry number of early witnesses who explicitly cite the 'certainly yes' answer.

Luke 22:70 is a quite clear affirmative answer, it's just obscured by a colloquialism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It is claimed there are a handful of references or allusions to Mark 14:61 - 62 before 400 CE in the biblindex.mom.fr. But only one make explicit reference to the 'I am' declaration of Jesus (at least that I can find) Clemens Alexandrinus Hypotyposeis STAEHLIN O., FRUECHTEL L., TREU U., 2e éd., GCS 17 (1970), 195-215. (p.209, l.9) BP1. Not only is this a sixth century citation of a work which was of questionable authenticity it stands alone again in the first four hundred years of the Church:

Quote:

Now, in the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord being interrogated by the chief of the priests if he was the Christ, the Son of the blessed God, answering, said, "I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right
hand of power."

Outside of this there are no other references I can find before the sixth century. The other references don't mention this 'I am' statement including:

Quote:

Hegesippus's narrative about James the brother of Jesus

Epistula ecclesiae Smyrniensis de Martyrio s. Polycarpi FUNK F.X., BIHLMEYER K., Die apostolischen Väter, Neubearbeitung der Funkschen Ausgabe, 2e éd., Tübingen 1956, 120-132. 8 § 2 (p.124, l.11) BP1

Origen Commentarii in Iohannem PREUSCHEN E., GCS 10 (1903), 3-480 ; 562-563. 10 § 252 (p.213, l.12 - < /) BP3

Origenes Contra Celsum BORRET M., SC 132 (1967) : livres 1-2 ; SC 136 (1968) : livres 3-4 ; SC 147 (1969) : livres 5-6 ; SC 150 ( 1969 ) : livres 7-8. 1 (p.66, l.15) BP3

Eusebius Caesariensis Historia ecclesiastica SCHWARTZ E., GCS 9,1 (1903) : livres 1 à 5 ; GCS 9,2 (1908) : livres 6 à 10. 4 15 § 16 (p.342, l.7 - *) BP4

Apocalypsis Petri graeca (eth.) MAURER Ch., DUENSING H., in HENNECKE E., SCHNEEMELCHER W., Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 2, Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und Verwandtes, 3e éd., Tübingen 1964, 472-483. § 6 (p.474, l.32) BP1

Commentarii in Matthaeum, libri X-XVII KLOSTERMANN E., BENZ E., GCS 40 (1935). 16 4 (p.476, l.7 - <) BP3

Commentarii in Matthaeum, libri XII-XIII (lat.) KLOSTERMANN E., BENZ E., GCS 38 (1933) Three references

Now admitted I haven't looked at the late Latin translation of Origen's Commentary on Matthew but I don't really care. The only reference to the 'I am' reference in Mark is Cassiodorus's late Latin translation of a work which many people who saw it deemed to be a corrupt text. There are other reasons to doubt the authenticity of the text which I can get into.

But the bottom line is that Mark 14:62 is the only certain statement that Jesus was the Christ in Mark (outside of the Mark 1:1 which is another discussion entirely - what is Mark 1:1?) and this raises doubts in my mind that Mark was developing a narrative which confirmed Jesus as the Christ.

There is a debate going on right now in scholarship about whether or not Mark's text originally read "I am" or "you say that I am." There's no question that Mark 14:62 confirms Jesus' identity as the Messiah, but rather whether the short or the long version is original. See, for instance, Leroy Huizenga, "The Confession of Jesus and the Curses of Peter: A Narrative-Christological Approach to the Text-Critical Problem of Mark 14:62," Novum Testamentum 53.3 (2011): 244–66; Joel Marcus, Mark 8-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27A; New York: Doubleday, 2009): 618–20. The longer reading was preferred by many scholars in the 30s through 70s, but the consensus has shifted since then. Marcus is the first to make the argument for the longer version in some time, as far as I know.

aa5874 · 01-01-2012, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maklelan

There's no question that Mark 14:62 confirms Jesus' identity as the Messiah...

Mark 14.62 does NOT confirm that gMark's Jesus was the Messiah when gMark is NOT a credible source.

You MUST FIRST find a corroborative non-apologetic source of antiquity for gMark and there is NONE.

Maklelan · 01-01-2012, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Mark 14.62 does NOT confirm that gMark's Jesus was the Messiah when gMark is NOT a credible source.

Good grief, you simply cannot separate narrative criticism from metaphysics, can you? I am not commenting on truth, I am commenting on the way the author presents his story. How many times do I have to explicitly correct you on this matter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You MUST FIRST find a corroborative non-apologetic source of antiquity for gMark and there is NONE.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my comments.

stephan huller · 01-01-2012, 08:45 AM

Sorry but I'm using my phone while playing action figures with my son. There is just Mark 14:62. Mark 8:29 - 30 is inconclusive

***29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

***Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”

*30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Sorry have to play Juggernaut

stephan huller · 01-01-2012, 08:47 AM

BTW thanks for the reference to the article

aa5874 · 01-01-2012, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maklelan

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Mark 14.62 does NOT confirm that gMark's Jesus was the Messiah when gMark is NOT a credible source.

Good grief, you simply cannot separate narrative criticism from metaphysics, can you? I am not commenting on truth, I am commenting on the way the author presents his story. How many times do I have to explicitly correct you on this matter?...

Well, the claim in gMark 14.62 does NOT confirm that gMark's Jesus was the Messiah just like Mark 1.1, Mark 9.41 and Mark 13.6 make no such confirmation.

There are other verses in gMark where the character claimed he was the Christ so I find that it is just illogical to isolate Mark 14.62 as confirmation that gMark's Jesus was the Messiah when the words of Jesus are DIRECTLY from the author himself and cannot be shown to have been said by Jesus.

gMark PRESENTED a Myth Fable of a character called Jesus Christ who did IMPLAUSIBLE miracles and was either betrayed, abandoned, denied, and rejected by his own disciples, the Jews and even God when he was crucified.

When Jesus was executed in gMark he was NOT called a Messiah by the Populace and once Jesus was DEAD before he was called Messiah then he could NOT ever be called a Messiah by Jews.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a posthumous MESSIAH just like there is NO such thing as a posthumous Emperor, and King.

Maklelan · 01-01-2012, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Sorry but I'm using my phone while playing action figures with my son. There is just Mark 14:62. Mark 8:29 - 30 is inconclusive

***29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

***Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”

*30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Sorry have to play Juggernaut

I disagree that it's inconclusive, and your translation removes the conjunction, which suggests a lack of continuity with the previous statement. The conjunction shows that Jesus' charge comes in relation to, and in response to, Peter's comment. In other words, what they were not supposed to tell others about him is the very attribute Peter identifies. Peter identifies him as the Christ and Jesus tells them not to let others know. There's no question that the text promotes the understanding that Jesus was the Christ, and that Jesus accepted that identification. Also, he identifies himself as the Son of Man in the very next verse, which is literary imagery that is explicitly connected with the imagery of the Anointed One.

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

01-01-2012, 08:45 AM	#107
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Sorry but I'm using my phone while playing action figures with my son. There is just Mark 14:62. Mark 8:29 - 30 is inconclusive *29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.” 30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him. Sorry have to play Juggernaut

01-01-2012, 08:47 AM	#108
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	BTW thanks for the reference to the article

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.