Solo

Jesus' cross is uniformly shown without the sedile, a small resting platform for the feet, designed to "help" the crucified to maintain a posture allowing him to breathe for a while longer. I imagine holding up without the sedile would have been much more difficult.

Jiri

spin

I didn't see that documentary. How do you say "sedile" in Greek?


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
First, a look at the offending word:

http://www.zhubert.com/word?word=%E1...&number=617545

"wonder, marvel, be astonished, be surprised"

This isn't just mild surprise:

JW: Hey, did you hear, Peter Kirby is going to be an Orthodox Rabbi.

Spin: (Continues to slurp). How bout that.

This is a lot of surprise:

JW: Hey, did you hear, Judge confessed that "Matthew" probably wasn't originally written in Aramaic.

Spin: (Spews out mouthful of Vendetta Goy Latte).

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_15

"15 And Pilate, wishing to content the multitude, released unto them Barabbas, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified."

First Jesus is scourged so he's probably bleeding, possibly badly.

"34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Then he is hung out to dry with the dirty laundry for 6 hours. Ancient writings seem to indicate that crucifixion could take from several hours to several days to kill. The historical Pilate had probably seen about as many crucifixions as anyone else so 6 hours to die would have been well within his range of experience. My analogy to you is you hear that someone was accidentally shot and they died. Are you surprised? Usually people don't die from gunshots but sometimes they do. It's within the range of possible outcomes.

I concede though that your observation is in the direction of logic. Maybe I'm overly influenced by Bill O'Reilly without ever having watched his show.

And who knows, maybe Elijah was actually coming to claim his cup when he noticed Jesus being crucified on The Way down and people referring to Jesus as Elijah and said:

"Whoa, maybe now's not such a good time, I can see you're busy. I'll come back another time."



Joseph

MYTHOLOGY, n.
The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished from the true accounts which it invents later.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
Now let's look at Jesus' Passionate encounter with "The Jews":

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_14

JW:
The Initial and Final Reaction of the Jewish Leaders to Jesus is they want to kill him, their own Messiah. Ironic. The Cast:

High priest: Has the Job of anointing the Messiah.

The elders: Has the job of leading the people to the Messiah.

The scribes: Has the job of identifying the Messiah from The Prophecies.

Note the High Irony of the above story:

1) The job of the Jewish leaders is to identify the Messiah.

2) They are only interested in evidence that Jesus is not the Messiah.

3) The only evidence they receive is that Jesus is the Messiah:

"Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

4) They conclude based on evidence that Jesus is the Messiah, that Jesus is not the Messiah:

"And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses?

Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death."

So "Mark's" "Jewish Leaders" who's job is to look for evidence which identifies the Messiah, look for evidence that Jesus is not the Messiah, receive evidence that Jesus is the Messiah, and conclude from it that Jesus is not the Messiah.

We have the following Inventory of High Irony in "Mark's" Jesus' Passion so far:

1) Followers of Jesus receive instruction from an Angel to tell everyone of Jesus' resurrection and tell no one.

2) Jesus has a chance to explain himself before the highest authority, Pilate, who is sympathetic to him, and says nothing.

3) "Mark's" "Jewish Leaders" who's job is to look for evidence which identifies the Messiah, look for evidence that Jesus is not the Messiah, receive evidence that Jesus is the Messiah, and conclude from it that Jesus is not the Messiah.

So the Irony of a 16:8 ending seems to fit very well with the overall Irony of "Mark's" Jesus' Passion. Stay tuned, there could be more.



Joseph

PASSION Created by ELIZA BETH ANONYMOUSE was introduced in ?AD (even
though the "AD" designation is long after the supposed AD event).
This fine smell contains jewsmine, beggaming the question, ruse and
is accented with tuberrosery, vanilly ice and mush making PASSION
perfect for formal abuse.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

spin

The writer's a bit of a drama queen. He uses the verb often enough. Even in Mk 15:5 with Pilate marveling over Jesus's silence.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
My own favorite Ironic story within "Mark's" Passion is Peter's Denial. "The Jews", who think they are Convicting Jesus but are actually convicting themselves, make fun of Jesus lack of display of Messianic power and specifically identify perhaps the best supposed indicator of the Messiah, the power of Prophesy. At the same time that they are making fun of this supposed deficiency in Jesus though, Jesus' famous prophecy that Peter would Deny him Three times is happening right under their long noses:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_14

Note that "Luke" inverts the Prophecy of Peter's Denial and lacks the historical present feature of "Mark" so the Irony does not work as well. Solid evidence that "Mark" is original and "Luke" is the Editing as "Mark's" Irony is superior:

The WallGan commission going over the McJuder tape once again:

Mark 14: (KJV)
53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.
54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.
55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.
56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.
57 And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,
58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
59 But neither so did their witness agree together.
60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
66 And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:
67 And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
68 But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
69 And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.
70 And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.
71 But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.
72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept."

Wallack: Now the "Stone" version at 33 & 1/3:

"And they led Jesus away to the high priest" (Jesus taken by Force)
"And Peter followed him afar off" (Peter taken Voluntarily)

"and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes." (Jesus' audience is Authority)
"and he sat with the servants" (Peter's audience is Servants)

"For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together." (Jesus' witnesses are False)
"they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto." (Peter's witnesses are True)

"And Jesus said, I am." (Jesus defends with the Truth)
"But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak." (Peter defends with a Lie)

"Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death." (Jesus' audience doesn't believe a True defense)
"And when he thought thereon, he wept" (Peter's audience believes a False defense)


Wallack:
Play back Mark 14:66 (KJV)
"And as Peter was beneath in the palace"

Play back Matthew 26:69 (KJV)
"Now Peter sat without in the palace"

Vorkosigan:
"Mark's" use of the historical present in Greek makes it clearer that the Jesus/Peter stories are intended to happen simultaneously. Just like you'd see in a split screen or a Play.

Wallack:
Agreed. Play back Mark 14:72:
"And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept."

Note the implication that the accusers believed Peter and left him alone to cry. Play back Matthew 26:75:

"And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly."

The implication is that Peter was not believed so he had to leave before he could cry. This is more believable historically but lessens the contrast of the Jesus/Peter story. So the little changes, "Mark's" simultaneous stories and consistent contrast in the Jesus/Peter stories are more contrived literature and less plausible historically. The consistent contrast between "Mark's" Jesus and Peter is consistent with "Mark's" theme that everyone failed Jesus. Peter's purpose in "Mark" is not to show a disciple who continued the Jesus movement but on the contrary to show that even Jesus' most trusted disciple and his #1 failed him. Note that in "Mark", unlike "Matthew", this is the last we hear of Peter. The implication is that even Peter realized he had failed Jesus. Permanently. This is why the fraudulent addition of "Mark" 16:9-20 is so significant.

Vorkosigan:
Therefore, the evidence indicates that "Mark" shot JFK (Jesus F. Krist) first and Acted alone without "Matthew" (the second Gospelman theory).

Wallack:
Agreed.



Joseph

Question. An interogative statement used to test knowledge. But that's not important now.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page