Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steve Weiss · 01-30-2012, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

.... Whenever someone wants to write down legends or such, he would have no reason to encase within it some non-supernatural portions unless these latter were surviving natural records of the person whom the legends had grown around. ...

This is rank nonsense. When people write fiction or legends, they could have many reasons to include non-supernatural parts of the story.

Or do you think you have proven the existence of the historical Little Red Riding Hood, the historical Hansel and Gretl, the historical Sleeping Beauty ???

The genre is historical fiction. The setting for Superman was Gotham City which actually is New York. King Kong, in the movie by that name, scaled the Empire State Building in New York, but no sane person takes that as "Gospel" truth. It's lends some unearned credibility to a story if one can recognize the setting and a few of the characters. Forest Gump meets several Presidents in that movie, and it must be true, I saw it with my own eyes.

Adam · 01-30-2012, 11:33 PM

The preceding four posts reveal once again this forum's inability to understand the concept of sources, though Shesh seems to be starting to grasp the concept. So what's my first verse in my cornerstone text? Here's the concluding paragraph in the second of my dual posts (#526 and 534 in Gospel Eyewitnesses):

Quote:

In case anyone missed the point, have I simplified the Passion Narrative in John sufficiently that the Mythical Jesus theory stands refuted? Also my Post #1 OP should be amended to include in the shared source (from John Mark) also verses preceding the Passion Narrative in John 11:54, 12:2-8, 12-14a, 13:18 or 21, and 13:38. These provide additional evidence that the person providing this "earliest gospel" (Grant's term) was indeed John Mark, as most of these additional verses apparently took place in his house when he was a teenager.

The first verse of what he actually saw first-hand is John 12:2, when Jesus came to his house the night before Palm Sunday. I suggested John 11:54 as an introduction to explain why Jesus was going around in secret to avoid being arrested. Following the above named verses, proceed to the Passion Narrative as classically defined--see #21 in this thread or the OP or #534 in the other.
Here's Teeple's translation of S in John 12:2-3:

Quote:

Then they made for him a supper there....Then Mary, having taken a litra of pure, costly nard ointment, anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped them with her hair. And the house was filled with the aroma of the ointment.

(I remember reading somewhere recently that "hair" here is a mistranslation, but I can't remember of what.) By my understanding of this, Mary was the writer's mother.

tanya · 01-31-2012, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

By my understanding of this, Mary was the writer's mother.

I am lost.

How is Mary, mother of Jesus, also the mother of "the writer"? Are you claiming that John's mother was also Mary?

What has any of this to do with "eye-witness" accounts? Where's the document, attesting to the existence of Jesus, outside the fairy tales in the new testament?

Sheshbazzar · 01-31-2012, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

The preceding four posts reveal once again this forum's inability to understand the concept of sources, though Shesh seems to be starting to grasp the concept. So what's my first verse in my cornerstone text? Here's the concluding paragraph in the second of my dual posts (#526 and 534 in Gospel Eyewitnesses):

Quote:

In case anyone missed the point, have I simplified the Passion Narrative in John sufficiently that the Mythical Jesus theory stands refuted? Also my Post #1 OP should be amended to include in the shared source (from John Mark) also verses preceding the Passion Narrative in John 11:54, 12:2-8, 12-14a, 13:18 or 21, and 13:38. These provide additional evidence that the person providing this "earliest gospel" (Grant's term) was indeed John Mark, as most of these additional verses apparently took place in his house when he was a teenager.

The first verse of what he actually saw first-hand is John 12:2, when Jesus came to his house the night before Palm Sunday. I suggested John 11:54 as an introduction to explain why Jesus was going around in secret to avoid being arrested. Following the above named verses, proceed to the Passion Narrative as classically defined--see #21 in this thread or the OP or #534 in the other.
Here's Teeple's translation of S in John 12:2-3:

Quote:

Then they made for him a supper there....Then Mary, having taken a litra of pure, costly nard ointment, anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped them with her hair. And the house was filled with the aroma of the ointment.

(I remember reading somewhere recently that "hair" here is a mistranslation, but I can't remember of what.) By my understanding of this, Mary was the writer's mother.

About as clear as mud Adam.
Does you 'Gospel according to the Atheists' begin with John 12:2? or does it begin with John 11:54?
What happened before 'the Passion' to get your characters to this point?

The climax is kind of weird place to be starting out your Gospel. But its your baby.
You must be planning on incorporating one hell of a shit-load of plot 'flashbacks'.

Adam · 01-31-2012, 10:12 PM

"I'm thinking about titling the second chapter of my book, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?"
The point of starting at John 12:2 is to disprove MJ by introducing Jesus in the most prosaic way possible, as a dinner guest coming into your mother's house. Then a week later write what happened during "My Week with the Master".

The next chapter would best be for the writer (John Mark presumably) to discover Nicodemus's collection of evidence against Jesus for the trial, editing out from the Discourses anything that may have been written later. At that point we would have about half the Gospel of John.
Subsequent chapters would add on Q and L, thus bringing in the Synoptics as also eyewitness testimony that would fit into "The Gospel According to the Atheists". That would provide all the material for the HJ part of the book, establishing that Jesus was a man, not a myth.

Level Two would continue on to the other three eyewitnesses of approximately the same time period to see whether they support remaining material about Jesus as more Lord or legend. Were the three apostles who were with Jesus the longest (Andrew, Peter, and John) thus able to witness many miracles or were they an inner circle who "cooked the books" and made stuff up in what they wrote respectively in the Signs Source, Mark, and the editorial additions to the Gospel of John?

Sheshbazzar · 02-01-2012, 09:49 AM

Quote:

"I'm thinking about titling the second chapter of my book, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?"
The point of starting at John 12:2 is to disprove MJ by introducing Jesus in the most prosaic way possible, as a dinner guest coming into your mother's house. Then a week later write what happened during "My Week with the Master".

The next chapter would best be for the writer (John Mark presumably) to discover Nicodemus's collection of evidence against Jesus for the trial, editing out from the Discourses anything that may have been written later. At that point we would have about half the Gospel of John.
Subsequent chapters would add on Q and L, thus bringing in the Synoptics as also eyewitness testimony that would fit into "The Gospel According to the Atheists". That would provide all the material for the HJ part of the book, establishing that Jesus was a man, not a myth.

uh huh....umm....yeah....Well then, Please DO get back with us when you have finished your -thinking- about what you are -thinking about doing-, and have actually COMPOSED your new version of your presently imagined Gospel's text.

It appears far more likely that Zombie Jeebus will have already returned, and Hell will have frozen over, before Adam ever gets around to producing his new and improved 'Gospel According to Adam'.

.

Adam · 02-01-2012, 11:26 PM

It's come to this--now you accuse me of thinking?

I think not. You're only imagining that I exist.

Sheshbazzar · 02-02-2012, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

It's come to this--now you accuse me of thinking?

You state; "I'm thinking about....blah... blah... blah" And I note that you claim you are 'thinking about....' does not constitute an accusation by any stretch.

Getting desperate aren't you? Why not just spend a bit o' yer remaining days in the composing of your imagined 'Gospel according to Adam' instead of continually making an ass of yourself here?

Adam · 02-02-2012, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

It's come to this--now you accuse me of thinking?

You state; "I'm thinking about....blah... blah... blah" And I note that you claim you are 'thinking about....' does not constitute an accusation by any stretch.

Getting desperate aren't you? Why not just spend a bit o' yer remaining days in the composing of your imagined 'Gospel according to Adam' instead of continually making an ass of yourself here?

I have wildly overestimated your sense of humor. Surely others can tell that I was playing with Descartes's "I think, therefore I am" and the award-winning new movie, "My Week with Marilyn."

It is funny enough that you were no longer accusing me of not thinking.

Sheshbazzar · 02-02-2012, 09:14 PM

Did I accuse you of not thinking? I don't recall doing so, and really doubt that I would, because to me it seems clear that you over-think everything so as to make mountains out of the smallest of molehills, and construct mansions out of straw and horse shit.
Gee...now where ever did I hear that simile before?

Why don't you just write out the first five verses of that 'Gospel According to Adam' that you are thinking about writing someday.

Inquiring minds really want to see what your "(in the main) most of....most of....most of" actually consists of, and what verses you are going to leave out.
No one can read it, till you produce it.

.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-31-2012, 10:12 PM	#55
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	"I'm thinking about titling the second chapter of my book, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" The point of starting at John 12:2 is to disprove MJ by introducing Jesus in the most prosaic way possible, as a dinner guest coming into your mother's house. Then a week later write what happened during "My Week with the Master". The next chapter would best be for the writer (John Mark presumably) to discover Nicodemus's collection of evidence against Jesus for the trial, editing out from the Discourses anything that may have been written later. At that point we would have about half the Gospel of John. Subsequent chapters would add on Q and L, thus bringing in the Synoptics as also eyewitness testimony that would fit into "The Gospel According to the Atheists". That would provide all the material for the HJ part of the book, establishing that Jesus was a man, not a myth. Level Two would continue on to the other three eyewitnesses of approximately the same time period to see whether they support remaining material about Jesus as more Lord or legend. Were the three apostles who were with Jesus the longest (Andrew, Peter, and John) thus able to witness many miracles or were they an inner circle who "cooked the books" and made stuff up in what they wrote respectively in the Signs Source, Mark, and the editorial additions to the Gospel of John?

02-01-2012, 11:26 PM	#57
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	It's come to this--now you accuse me of thinking? I think not. You're only imagining that I exist.

02-02-2012, 09:14 PM	#60
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Did I accuse you of not thinking? I don't recall doing so, and really doubt that I would, because to me it seems clear that you over-think everything so as to make mountains out of the smallest of molehills, and construct mansions out of straw and horse shit. Gee...now where ever did I hear that simile before? Why don't you just write out the first five verses of that 'Gospel According to Adam' that you are thinking about writing someday. Inquiring minds really want to see what your "(in the main) most of....most of....most of" actually consists of, and what verses you are going to leave out. No one can read it, till you produce it. .

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.