Magdlyn

Exactly. We all have a right and responsibility to be advocates for our own health. There are too many quacks out there, who happen to have MDs. Dr's have opinions which may be wrong. Question everything. Look into alternative healthcare when it seems appropriate.

I've been told too many outright wrong things, and seen too much damage done by MDs, to not be highly skeptical and determined to do my own research along with consulting with whomever my medical insurance allows me to employ.

Similarly, I will read what theological scholars (who hope to hold onto their tenures and grants) say about Jesus, as well as the works of brilliant amateurs, and weigh them all against the bs meter in my own mind...

Gregg

Look at the way you're reading all this crap into what I said. I can't make an innocent comment without it being twisted into something sinister. you are full of it, jgibson.

And now I'm a "crank" and I'm "claiming expertise." Did you even read my opening post? I can't tell you how hard it is right now restraining myself from calling yousomething far worse than "crank," but I hate to see this thread degenerate into a flame war.

As a general rule of thumb, I go with the expert consensus. This is my default position on just about everything, including Biblical scholarship. However, on this issue, I happen to think the experts may be wrong. What is so terrible about that? Do you really think the evidence for Jesus' historical existence is so overwhelming that there's absolutely no room for reasonable doubt? If so, you're the one who is under-researched and uninformed.

Malachi151

Yes, correct. No, I have not seen anything that clearly and plainly says "the son of man played a role in creation", but as stated above, in the 1st and 2nd century BCE there was a stew of ideas, in which these various figures mixed and mingled and were taken as related to one another.

Clearly in the Gospel of John Christ has a role in the creation.

In the letters of Paul Christ has existed since the creation or before the creation. Christ is also called the wisdom of God.

In Enoch and various apocalypses we have a Son of man, Elect One, etc., who has existed since the beginning of the creation and played various roles or done things or is destined to do things.

In Wisdom of Solomon I believe, maybe Baruch, Wisdom of Sirach, Proverbs 8, I beleive, Wisdom is depicted as incarnate and in some cases having played a role in creation.

Regardless of the issue of total nonexistence of Jesus, the traditional scholars don't pay nearly enough attention to literary and theological pathways for the development of elements of the Jesus story.

Even if some Jesus did exist, when looking at the Gospels scholars should be looking for literary and theological basis for scenes and story elements, not assuming that they are talking about something that really happened.

Again, with the carpenter issue.

That Jesus was called a carpenter in GMark for allegorical or metaphorical reasons should be high on the list of things that Biblical scholars explore, yet, stuff like this is not.

Look at how many NT scholars still attest that Jesus had a brother named James who took over after he died. This is laughable, and as I have already discussed in other threads, its quite easy to see in the Christian sources that this is really impossible.

But James is a huge issue, because not only is this a part of tradition, but its one of the few tiny threads holding Jesus into Josephus, and thus holding Jesus into supposed history, so critical assessment of James is virtually nil, at least as far as I have seen. Even guys like J.P. Meier, hold on to James.

jgibson000

James Tabor and Tom Wright are theological seminaries??

To the best of my knowledge Thompson is not a seminary either.

JG

Toto

The mind's trick of finding patterns in randomness is called "Pareidolia." But with literary parallels, we know that literature is written in a social setting and many authors deliberately use parallels to previous art, whether consciously or unconsciously. We know in particular that writers of this period were trained to use classical texts as models in composition. The entire field of literary criticism takes the task of uncovering these parallels very seriously. I don't think you can dismiss any literary parallels so easily.

jgibson000

That's nice to hear. But it means nothing so -- and is certainly not evidence -- so far as the validity of your claim is concerned.

Sorry, but this is not at all clear. It is the LOGOS, not the Christ (and certainly not, as TH asserts without proof, Jesus), that, according to John, has a role in the creation. You are engaging in gross equivocation, not to mention eisegesis and rank inattention to the text and language of John 1:1ff John, if you, along with that wonderful eisegete Kenneth Taylor of Living Bible fame (or is that infamy?), think otherwise.

And yet none of them having to do with creation. Funny, though, if this was what was thought of the Son of Man, that it doesn't appear here.

Yes -- "incarnate" in the Torah.

And you do? Is the above an example of how -- and how well -- you do it?

And could you name some of these "traditional scholars" who have not paid the attention to the "pathways" that you think these "pathways" deserve, even assuming you know what these pathways are and that they are not a figment of your imagination?

And you know that they are not doing this how? What Gospel scholars have you been reading?

You have yet to establish that Jesus is called a "carpenter" for the specific reasons you note. And until you do, you have no grounds for excoriating anyone for not doing something that it is more than likely no one should be doing in the first place.

Have you actually looked at any of the literature on Mk 6:1-6 that deals with the significance of attaching the "carpenter" label to Jesus? If so, could you tell us what on this you've actually read?

Here's a small sampling of the periodical literature on the passagewhat's out there"

Betz, O. “Jesus in Nazareth.” Israel hat dennoch Gott zum Trost. In FS Schalom Ben-Chorin, ed. G. Müller. Trier: Paulinus, 1978. 44–60. Blinzler, J. Die Brüder und Schwestern Jesu. SBS 21. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967. Crossan, J. D. “Mark and the Relatives of Jesus.” NovT 15 (1973) 81–113. Grässer, E. “Jesus in Nazareth (Mark VI.1–6a): Notes on the Redaction and Theology of St. Mark.” NTS 16 (1969–70) 1–23. Haenchen, E. Gesammelte Aufsätze, II. Täbingen: Mohr, 1968. Huston, H. W. “Mark 6 and 11 in P45 and in the Caesarean Text.” JBL 74 (1955) 262–71. Kertelge, K. Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium. 1970. Koch, D.-A. Die Bedeutung der Wundererzählungen fär die Christologie des Markusevangeliums. 1975. McArthur, H. K. “Son of Mary.” NovT 15 (1973) 38–58. Mayer, B. “Ueberlieferungs- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Ueberlegungen zu Mk 6, 1–6a.” BZ 22 (1978) 187–98. Robbins, V. K. “Dynameis and Semeia in Mark.” BR 18 (1973) 5–20. Roloff, J. Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus. 1970. Schmahl, G. Die Zwölf im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. TTS 30. Trier: Paulinus, 1974. Schulz, S. Die Stunde der Botschaft. Hamburg: Furche, 1967. Stauffer, E. “Jeschua ben Mirjam (Mk 6,3).” In Neotestamentica et Semitica, FS M. Black, ed. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969. 119–28. Sturch, R. L. “The ‘’ΪΑΤΡΙΣ’ of Jesus.” JTS 28 (1977) 94–96.

(For more, see H.M. Humphrey, A Bibliography for the Gospel of Mark, 1954-1980 (or via: amazon.co.uk) and The Gospel of Mark: An Indexed Bibliography 1980-2005 (or via: amazon.co.uk); Frans Neirynck The Gospel of Mark : a cumulative bibliography 1950-1990; and Robert Gundry, Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk).)

Are any of the works you've read/consulted on Mk. 6:4 among them? Which, if any of the critical commentaries on Mark have you read?

I imagine not. But I'd love to be proven wrong.


JG

Magdlyn

Actually, John 1 goes on to equate the logos with the light, and then says John (Baptist) was sent to testify to the light, being the logos made flesh. 1:29 goes on to have JohnBaptist identify this personage as Jesus, the son of god.

It doesn't take a PhD to just read that in any old Bible.



Is it really necessary to use epithets like gross, rank and infamous to make your point?

Magdlyn

Why shouldn't they? What is wrong with looking at the Bible stories as metaphors and allegories with deeper meanings? Any Jew worth his or her salt, any Catholic, is officially encouraged to do so, to a point at least.



Much of that is German lit. Are you suggesting Malachi (and everyone else) now needs to be fluent in German as well as Greek to be allowed any opinion at all on the historicity of Jesus? Surely not.

jgibson000

The issue isn't whether one is "allowed" an, let alone any, opinion on the HJ. It's what one has to (or should be) familiar with in order to be able validly to make the sorts of global claims about what NT scholars do not do or have not done that "Malachi151" has been making and assuring us are true.

So, yes, if they wish to make claims about what NT scholars as a whole have or have not done, and to be taken seriously, then they need to be able to read more than English.

And if you wish to have an informed opinion on the historicity of Jesus, then the answer is also yes.

JG

jgibson000

He goes on to identify that the Logos is to be seen and known in Jesus, not that the pre-existent LOGOS was a person or was ever viewed as a term equivalent in meaning or signification to "Christ".

I take it you mean "read into".


These are adjectives, not epithets. And if like, the proverbial shoe, they fit, then yes they are is necessary, especially since "rank" =absolute eisegesis, "gross" = great is what M. was up to and since Taylor's is infamous for his equivocations and his eisegesis.

JG