aa5874

Your post is just unsubstantiated and Speculative.

If Jesus was an ordinary man then gMark is NOT credible or reliable since the author claimed Jesus WALKED on the sea, Transfigured and was RAISED from the dead.

The Markan Jesus acted like a Spirit and the disciples thought he was a Spirit while he was walking in the sea.

Once you have DISCREDITED the author of gMark's description of Jesus then you MUST use another source which is credible and reliable.

This is so basic.

Once you have DETERMINED that the Markan source is NOT credible then some other source MUST be employed to corroborate ALL characters and events in the UNRELIABLE source.

TedM

This is where I disagree. IF someone tells you a lie, do you never believe anything they ever said again? What if you find out he didn't even realize it was a lie?

aa5874

You mean an unknown lie is the truth?

It is as if you cannot stop BELIEVING even when you ADMIT that the ALL of history is AMBIGUOUS.

This is absolutely basic.

Once a source is known to be UNRELIABLE then there MUST external corroboration by some other source.

1. Pilate in gMark is Externally corroborated by Philo and Josephus.

2. The High Priest in gMark is corroborated Externally Josephus.

3. Jesus of Nazareth in gMark is NOT corroborated EXTERNALLY.

Why do you want to BELIEVE that gMark contains the history of a man of Nazareth when the very gMark claimed Jesus of Nazareth looked like a Spirit when he was walking on the sea and there is NO external corroboration?

Do you NOT understand that Jesus could have been born and lived ANYWHERE on earth and at some unknown time because gMark is UNRELIABLE?

This is so basic.

Unreliable sources NEED external corroboration Before they can be BELIEVED.

Juststeve

You analysis is not so much BASIC as it is SIMPLISTIC, perhaps even SIMPLE MINDED.

Steve

Horatio Parker

I get it, thanks.

An alternative is fulfilling scripture. So if there are predictions of a Galilean messiah after the Maccabees, that's even better:

From "Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Sons of Jacob the Patriarch"

Draw near to Levi in humility of your hearts
11 in order that you may receive blessing from his mouth. For he will bless Israel and Judah , since it is through him that the Lord has chosen to reign in the presence
12 of all the people.

The Hasmoneans were from the tribe of Levi, a northern tribe. If Mark was pursuing a gentile agenda, he might prefer a messiah from Galilee, the point being was there was also Jewish scripture to justify it.

aa5874

Your analysis is FAITH based or without EVIDENCE, which is SIMPLY considered irrational or unreasonable.

You rely on your IMAGINATION. I do not accept the words of those who imagine the history of a man of Nazareth who have NO source and NO corroboration.

If you want to talk about a man from Nazareth get your sources of antiquity.

I SIMPLY want sources not rhetoric, imagination and embarrassment.

I can find sources for gMark's PILATE and High Priest.

I can find sources for the character called Jesus Christ in gMark who was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day.

But, I SIMPLY can't find sources for an ordinary man/woman from Nazareth, that was ORDINARLIY baptized and CRUCIFIED under Pilate.

You apply SIMPLE FAITH but I SIMPLY use SOURCES of antiquity.

Toto

Did the Jews before Christ expect a national Messiah?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Thanks for this.

The conclusion from this should not be that a man from Jesus inspired talk of a coming messiah 40 years after he died. Rather it should be that only after Bar Kokhba proclaimed himself the messiah circa 132 would present-world messianic talk become acceptable and the gospels that portray Jesus as a messiah become popular. This is evidence that they are from after this period in the Second century. Second century ideals are being retrospected back into first century stories.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

andrewcriddle

It is disputed whether the "Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" is a basically Jewish work with Christian additions, or an originally Christian work.

Andrew Criddle

TedM

Do you EVER reverse your condemnation on a source? What if you find out he didn't realize he told a falsehood? My question again is very simple: IF someone tells you a lie, do you never believe anything they ever said again? What if you find out he didn't even realize it was a lie?

Do you require sources to prove their reliability before you trust anything they write?