Toto

outhouse: Dr. Barré left off a few quote tags, so you might have missed his CV:

http://www.freewebs.com/lmbarre/aboutdrbarr.htm

outhouse

Thank You

aa5874

Your claims are articles of faith and are of no real value since you have ZERO sources to support you.

You cannot establish at all that gMark is an historical account and that it was even written in the 1st century around c 70 CE.

I find it extremely disturbing that you can presume gMark was composed c 70 CE based on nothing else but imagination.

There is NO actual corroborative evidence at all that gMark was composed c 70 CE and based on the contents of gMark it was most likely composed AFTER the "Life of Flavius Josephus" or AFTER c 96-99 CE.

Even Paleographers do NOT date writings within a year but in the range of 50-100 years yet people here use ONLY their imagination and date gMark to c 70 CE.

gMark could have been written up to 4th century.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

No manuscript about the Jesus story have ever been found and dated to c 70 CE.

Up to the middle of the 2nd century, Justin Martyr did NOT acknowledge any gospel according to Mark and did NOT claim it was read in the Churches.

By the way, gMark's Jesus was NOT human. gMark's Jesus was the Son of God and that is precisely why we have all the Supernatural miracles and resurrection.

In effect, gMark is NOT history.

Chili

Sounds about right as a perfect Senecan tragedy it is, and so is Matthew, to be placed opposite to Luke and John as divine comedies.

In this sense are they failed divine comedies, or perhaps failed not-so-divine comedies and these are characteristic of Seneca as nothing can be a gory as those.

Of course England does not know or understand this difference and will call Macbeth a Shakespearean tragedy as one of kind, but really is the flip-side of Coriolanus as the famous Senecan tragedy in England placed opposite his divine comedy that takes place in Rome.

Please understand that Matthew and Marks Jesus goes back to Galilee instead of heaven for another 40 years and will die there nonetheless.

outhouse

First my apology, I didnt even give a decent reply, or cared to, falsely assuming this was another uneducated attempt at a explanation.

We get a few that copy and paste large amounts of scripture cherry picked to "set up" their context.


Let me take a better crack at this.


Is there possiblilities due to simular writing styles?

This would be Younger, correct?


I have to ask how far back in the Passion sequence are you stating this person is a source?

If your shooting for the arrest to death, I find this hard to swallow. This is one of the more fictitious parts in the bible. Had there been any eyewitness testimoney or oral traditions, we might have a accurate glimpse into the past. But that is not what we are left with. Even with redaction by Pauline influenced god-fearering Romans, its still to fictitious.

There were no shortage of possible witnesses in Judaism and in the god-fearering communities, in attendance at Passover that could provide oral tradition's regarding a general overview.

I would have to ask for what indication you make your assumption.


Do you mean a Roman god-fearer influenced by Pauline traditions?

Why would a Hellenistic Jew write to non-jews specifically, and playing to a Roman audience.

By the time this was written, there was already a deep seperation from Judaism, and I find it hard to think that any Jew would purposely pervert Jusaism so deeply for non-Jews.

My biggest criticism with a Jew for any part of the author, is how hard the whole piece plays Jews as the enemy of the Jesus charactor. No real Jew would discredit their herritage is such a Roman fashion. As to where a God-Fearer already looked down upon by real Followers of Judaism, would in fact write exactly like this.

Why would a loyal Jew, A true follower of the Jesus charactor. A charactor who hated the Roman oppression and corruption in the temple so much! that he would take his possible nonviolent methods, and turn them into violence that would get him noticed and murdered by Romans. Write a religious piece for his mortal enemies?

lmbarre

I take the final, post-death rendevous to be Markan rather than pMarkan. As I argued in my original post, pMark concluded in 15:39, making the subsequent burial and emtpy tomb episodes to be a Markan supplement. Mark's ending is lost, but it strongly implies a rendevouz in Galilee.

Chili

Ok, I am not a theologian but that he will go back to Galilee is written all over Mark.

lmbarre

No, not all over Mark. Only twice a stated anticipation. As I recall, first when he was about to be arrested and next by the young man at the empty tomb.

Nor am I.

Chili

Not 'all over' because Mark is drenched with it and that begins already with the camelhair coat he wore as a Jew living totally beside himself and did not have a clue what Nazareth was all about.

Narzareth here would be the Torah of tradition that Seneca used to slamdunk intelligentsia (doxy-graphy) that John was dunking here, because you have got to get them wet to make it count, they think, after you confess your sins to validate its worth.

The paradox here is that intelligence demands objectivity while subjectivity is required to make the water wet that John was using here, and thus faith is the requirement that comes from Nazareth and not the sins confessed. The difference is made known here and nobody can say this better than Arjuna herself:

“Krishna, I want you! I don”t need your army. I want you only!”

taken from the bottom line in here:
http://www.writespirit.net/wp-conten...junas-choice//

This difference is evident in all of Mark that nicely is conceiled in the art of sophistry, they called it, to arouse the curious eye of his reader.

Accordingly I dare say that Mark is loaded with this kind of stuff to lead his reader all the way to hell and back to make the difference known between a tragedy and comedy. IOW, it was no accident this his Jesus went back to Galilee again.

Mark is a beautiful tragedy that he wrote from way up there among the saints in heaven or he could never design the intricate plot he did.

Such for example as in 10:28 where the one word "property" does not belong which is much the same as believing that fruit can fly in this:

Chili

And to get blunt about this compare John's introduction with Luke's exposition of John, and then notice also the kinship he has with Luke's Jesus who in the end is crucified when [this] John is introduced as his mother's son in gJohn.; to say that Luke and John as comedy are what Matthew and Mark are in tragedy to be placed opposite as the real 'two by two' for us to know.

. . . and there was no fire either, except as the itch to get back to Galilee again with Simon and Andrew as (because) his mother-in-law would have him there. Note that Simon's and Andrew's mother-in-law was the woman in the TOL who was presented as Elizabeth in Luke 1:24-25 = no more desire driven urgency with the reign of God at hand.

And so it goes, line after line without end.