mountainman

Besides all this, with a few minor exceptions, where are the canonical sources that describe the martyred disciples? The bulk of the sources that describe the martyred disciples AFAIK are to be found in the non canonical acts and gospels of the gnostic heretics.

These are regarded as non historical literary romance inventions.

Huon

Hi Jay,

I agree completely with your post #20.

Roger Pearse

It seems a little unreasonable to present such wild theories -- every shred of ancient data contradicts them, you know -- as "information" rather than opinion. And the appeal to the consensus of modern scholarship as an authority -- I hope you have checked what this is, rather than relying on memory? -- is rather curious, considering the rejection of that consensus is habitual in this forum.

Let's not say more than we know to be true. And if we find ourselves rejecting all the data on a controversial subject in favour of the opinions of people 2,000 years later with no more data than ourselves, a little self-critical thinking would seem to be in order.

Be sceptical.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

sotto voce

So was the purpose of #15 to demonstrate that a disciple was indeed martyred, or to show that no disciple was martyred?

Solo

I think this is the most perceptive statement I have read on the board for a long time. I have long considered Mark as the author of the gospel narrative who brilliantly mimicked the passing of the spirit, portrayed as the life and death of an hallucinated Jesus to calm and reassure the excited brains of visionaries. Mark divined Jesus in a set of surreal parables, meaningful to those who experienced the dramatic changes in perception and cognition that come with the quickening of the spirit.

The gospel is all in parables; parables told by Jesus wrapped in parables about Jesus. It's a dream intrerpreted for those who wake up from it (i.e. recover from the disordered brain chemistry) and want to understand what on earth has happened to them. The gospel was to teach them that they were to cherish the experience (which outsiders despise as common mania manifesting itself in lunatic ravings) as a privileged witnessing by the God's elect of the passing of the Lord's spirit, the vision of the life and death of Jesus Christ.






Best,
Jiri

Huon

The purpose of post #15 was to quote Acts :

A guy, James, brother of John, was killed by a king, Herod by name.

This story looked like the killing of JtB by Herod Antipas, as mentioned by PhilJay.
And JtB could have had a brother James (Jakob). Could, no proof for or against.

Another guy, James, brother of John, was killed by a king, Herod by name. So writes the author of Acts, in its last version.
this James could be James, the son of Zebedee, and Herod could be Herod Antipas. Could, no proof for or against.

sotto voce

So you had, or have, a real, if unusual ambition to quote Acts. Is it over now, or can we expect more?

You know, people might have got the impression, as it was addressed to nobody, apropos nothing much, that your quote might have been to contradict

'Nobody knows what happened to any of 'the Twelve', Paul, Luke, Silas, Barnabas, Titus, Timothy or any other apostle or associate'

without actually saying it was to do so. But of course, we all knew about martyrs mentioned in the Bible, and you wouldn't be so petty as to try to reduce the reputation of a poster by such a method. No, your post was submitted out of simple respect for the memory of James. Don't forget Stephen, too. And there's Paul being left for dead, and Jesus' warning of persecution, and more in the NT, that many do not suspect. Jesus was so right, wasn't he.

Huon

Possibly Mark lived in the fourth century.

Huon

Luke must have suffered much for the Faith.

sotto voce

Ah. Comedy time.