Unbeliever

Greetings John W. Loftus!

I've just finished reading you book about why you bacame an atheist, and wanted to let you know that I thouroughly enjoyed it. If I were a believer in Christianity, I think your book (among others) would've given me a hard time!

Toto

Tom Verenna's blog in response to Loftus' claims.

aa5874

There are errors in Tom Verenna's post. He wrote, "The fact that Mark used Paul is not new to scholarship."

But it is not a fact that the author of Mark used Paul, it is just a theory.

Again, in the same post, he wrote, "The Gospel author of Mark used Paul's account to create the Last Supper scene."

But upon examination, words found in Paul's Last Supper scene are only found in gLuke.

There is really no indication that the author of Mark or Matthew saw Paul's or the author of Luke's rendition of the words of Jesus, however, it is likely that either the author of Luke or author of the Pauline letters were aware of one or the other's version of the Last Supper.

Analyst

ISTR that Michael Baigent also claimed that a copy found in Russia had the passage missing.

Ken Carman

Seems to me if someone claims any book or document is historically accurate: especially completely; without reservation, it is up to them to defend their stance or prove their point.

My own theory about cults is rather simple. A dynamic leader; or one who is perceived as such... I have to include that because I believe those who believe Bush can do no wrong, for example, are cultists in a sense... gathers followers who convince others. Some cults are designed like pyramid schemes that implode: Jonestown. What kept the Jesus cult alive is fresh blood, fresh thought and a willingness to adapt to other faiths so as to attract more followers. Like accepting much of the pagan feltergarb that surrounded Solstice and spinning it into Christmas.

The memory of the leader after he passes on is altered and shifted to adjust for these changes. In Misquoting Jesus Bart Ehrman provides many examples of this and in his book Lost Christianities he shows how in the early years, post execution, many variations of Christianity struggled over this.

Ken Carman

According to what I have read and researched Mark is supposedly the first written, and most likely written by Mark himself. So it would be unlikely Mark would have copied from Luke. But, again, Bart Ehrman in his books does provide evidence that the gospel writers basically used each other as sources... though these were mostly word of mouth to begin with. There were no first source texts. There is a source called "J," I think, that many of these were drawn from but it would not have been a first source in any sense. Scribes copied these over and over and errors crept in: intentional and not.

There's also The Secret Gospel of Mark that Gnostics used. It's basically Mark with a less abrupt end and the stories fleshed out some. In Mark Jesus rides into a city and then leaves: nothing described regarding what happened. Secret fleshes that out. There's also a rather odd encounter with another male that seems like Jesus spent the night with him! But Secret "fleshes" that out too; well, actually "un-" fleshes it; making the encounter less suspicious.

I'd post a few links, but because this is my second post I can't. The software here (vs. "hard"ware... chuckle... considering the previous para. about Mark) won't allow me to until I get a few more posts. But I am finding the discussions fascinating.

Toto

Hi Ken - welcome to the boards.

I think you are referring to Q, a hypothetical early source for Matt and Luke. J is a hypothetical source for the Torah.

And please note - Secret Mark is now generally accepted to have been forged by Morton Smith. (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Ben C Smith

First one written, yes, but it is difficult to see what you mean when you say it was written by Mark himself. Many, I daresay most, scholars doubt that the gospel was written by the John Mark known from Acts 12.12, 25; 15.37-39 or the Mark known from 1 Peter 5.13, Colossians 4.10, 2 Timothy 4.11, and Philemon 1.24. A lot of these scholars, however, harbor few doubts that somebody named Mark wrote the gospel. Is that all you meant?

(For whatever it may be worth, I myself tend to think that the figure called Mark or John Mark in the NT was indeed the author of the gospel; but I really think I am in the minority.)

The source called J is an alleged source for the Pentateuch, not for the gospels. The putative lost source for (two of) the gospels is called Q.

Two stories are fleshed out, but we have no evidence that the secret gospel of Mark had anything to do with the ending of that gospel. And many tend to think that secret Mark is a modern hoax or forgery, anyway.

Ben.

spamandham

Do you consider a group that is centered around an obviously non-historical character, say for example Abraham, to also be a cult?

Transient

Actually that is an interesting angle I haven't seen before.
Until the temple was destroyed, supposedly confirming the prophecy of "Jesus", why would anyone bother listening to "christians", unless knowledge of his miracles and resurrection was widespread and accepted?
Certainly his prophecy would not have been of any value until after 70ad.

I wonder what evidence there is that any Jews were converted to "christianity" before 70ad.

Trouble is it is hard to believe anything that anyone writes about history, it is always skewed to the likes of the victors or those in power, especially back then when it was expensive to preserve writings and most people probably hardly ever read anything, but had it read to them maybe in a synagogue.