Susan2

That's is a bit melodramatic.

I see it more a tag team. The Romans and the Jews were always in bed together. Their history goes way back. Somewhere along the line there was a war. Someone loses in wars. The Christian Jews, chose not to be the losers. Perhaps they were more willing to win, had more strength, more cunning, more resolve, or whatever else it takes to win.

They eventually gained the support of the Romans. Had the orthodox Jews won, the same could be said, and women everywhere might still be wearing burquas.


The same thing can be said of the Protestants and the Catholics.

The same thing can be said of The Union and The Confederacy in regards to the USA Civil War. Someone won, someone lost.

The same thing can be said of the allies and the axis in WWII.

The Jewish Zionists had their war internally and externally; they won. Israel exists.

I am sure Israel will fight to the death to remain. I don't blame them. It would however be a shame to see them spiral down into religious fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism exists in Israel to this day. They are not more nor less special then other countries experiencing the same difficulties, birth pains.

Our history has been that of rising out of religious fundamentalism.

Dutch_labrat

Maybe the disciples are just literary devices. Some very basic characters for Jesus to interact with.

spin

This is what Eusebius reports Papias said:

Eusebius, H.E. III.39.14
but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]:

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

Fits, doesn't it?


spin

show_no_mercy

So we have some dumb disciples just retelling some anecdotes about their teacher, and then some overzealous gentiles, who are their interpreters, puff up the anecdotes and turn Jesus from a teacher to the son of god or god himself.

Susan2

Of course, God is omnipotent. So was Peter, and Paul, ect., right down to you and me.

The story ends with them killing the good guy, the one who doesn't want to drink vinegar, and releasing the bad guy.

I presume the moral of the story is, if you want someone to drink vinegar, drink it yourself.

rlogan

Forgive me spin. I am a little obtuse here. I think you put "Mark the Interpreter of Peter" in color and your statement is directed towards that.

Whatever Eusebius says is laced with plutonium, on account of his duty to forge consistency between official state religion and official state history. They are the same thing in this case. The state religion is an alleged historical narrative about the godman on earth.

I look at Peter and the rock of the church as a late addition to christianity, and the decisive vehicle by which orthodoxy pre-empted the field. A direct line from Jesus through Peter to the Church at Rome.

So the gospel stories became the buttress of Papal supremacy against other claimants and the most critical link in that chain is Peter.

Therefore Mark is Peter's "Interpreter". Mark underwent revisions so this is probably a matter of co-opting an existing Markan story and making it fit orthodox designs.

avi

If correct, and I don't argue to the contrary, then, logically, why couldn't the entire apparatus have been constructed in the third century?

Perhaps the conflicting portrayal of the disciples who abandon Jesus, who betray him, etc, represent a couple hundred years of schizophrenic editing: redactions, transpositions, insertions, how do we know which form of the gospels were read by Justin Martyr, or any other second century author? If the story of Thomas was a third century invention, then, why not all of the other stories as fabrications and additions too? Then the question is, what was the raw stuff from which these editorial additions were constructed?

spin

How would you know? How do you test the claim? Short answer is that you simply can't. Stop the logorrhea.

Impressive logic.

God came down and had himself killed as the only way to change his own law. More impressive logic.

Or people who think like the renaissance never happened won't understand much about the world.


spin

spin

Everybody's keen on what happened after the data entered the tradition, but nobody seems concerned about the evidence of how it got into the tradition. Eusebius's Papias is happy enough with the claim that "Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered." Where is that Mark? -- the one that listened to Peter and faithfully recorded the story? Can you see him? the faithful recording? Is the work we've got called Mark (for example) reflective of such a process? Let's forget about the authorial connections with the LXX. Let's excise the disciple dumbies. (Do you remove the contexts for the disciples being dumbies as well?) Do you really get any notion that the material you've got left -- what, a few sayings and a few "he went"s -- constitute material for a tangible theory that supports the Eusebian Papias type claim of transmission from real recollections to faithful recording?


spin

Susan2

Religion, ancient philosophers claim that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. What does that mean? See below. Who is capable of those things? God. What/who is God? God is omnipotent. See below.


potent >adjective 1 having great power, influence, or effect.

Omni - all.

omni- >combining form 1 all
-ORIGIN from Latin omnis 'all'.

To be all of something would include both being and not being. Present and not present. Knowing and not knowing. Able and not able. Good and evil. Fact and fiction. Supply and demand. Mistakes and corrections. Right and wrong. Up and down. Left and right. East and west. North and south. Joy and sorrow. Discriminate and indiscriminate. Genuine and disingenuous. Life and death.

It is not easy being God.

Can God create a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it? Yes. A logical puzzle to spark critical thinking. God needs knowledge and assistance, and so creation continues, necessarily. It's origin, communication.

Can God create a square circle? A disingenous question. It's illogic sabotages meaningful discussion, logic. it's origin, deception.

Now the Catholic Church claims their God is a Superior God, Creator. I presume that this is where they develop their heaven, purgatory and hell after death doctrines. Are they building square circles? Is this helpful? Is that God's purpose?

Of course one could argue that those things exist on earth, here, in life, this life.


The law was?

You have the right to disagree. I won't be offended.