stephan huller

But I've just shown you what it means in Aramaic and Hebrew - a term that is so ambiguous it could be applied to anyone. It doesn't have any specific messianic connotation but it is used by Mark in a manner which is consistent with Daniel's original purpose in chapter 11 - i.e. a wholly supernatural being.

But this is what started my original diatribe against western interpretations of the gospel. The traditional manner of exegesis among the Jews is to follow schools of interpretation. This wasn't something that happened accidentally in Christianity. The religion was following a pattern established in Judaism.

To this end, Clement is part of the tradition of Mark in Alexandria. I don't know why white people (or you can substitute any term you feel is more politically appropriate to designate 'people that have nothing to do with the Bible') need to allow so much room to develop personal interpretations of the material. Surely Mark passed along an exegesis of his gospel. The most likely place that tradition of interpretation would have been located would have been Alexandria as noted in the Clement's letter to Theodore.

Diogenes the Cynic

But Mark's beliefs were not derived from the original movement, and Mark was not Jewish.

stephan huller

That's not what the Alexandrian tradition says. The Alexandrian tradition says he was Jewish, born of Jewish mother and lived in Jerusalem. I don't see why this should be discounted other than you don't know about it. The sources are Pseudo-Yusab, Severus of some insignificant town I forget near Rosetta and Severus of Al'Ashmunein. It is also implicit in Eusebius's reinterpretation of the Therapeuts. What's a Gentile doing working alongside Jewish sectarians? Whether or not Mark actually built monasteries for the sect, he must have been thought Jewish enough to even allow such an interpretation to get off the ground. If the Alexandrians of the fourth century knew he was a Gentile Eusebius wouldn't have made up such nonsense. And then there is this:






It seems to indicate to me at least that (a) the tradition associated with Mark at Alexandria was rooted in Judaism and (b) the imagery has something to do with Mark's citation of Daniel 11.

stephan huller

I've just shown you what it meant in Philo. He's not Jewish? What was he? Polish?

steve_bnk

We do not know what the original movement may have been, we can only speculate That is the HJ debate.

A Jewish tale of unkown possibly anecdotal roots was transformed iinto a non Jewish myth. Do you dispute that generalization?



The only altrernatve is the whole thing was fiction including all the known writings in and out of the NT cannon.

steve_bnk

As I understnd it, Abraham was pre Jewish.

Abrahanic today means the three faiths that trace roots bck to Abraham. Muslims claimt hey can trace genetic roots back to Abraham. .A split in the lineage.

Mohammed preached the 'people of the book' had lost the true faith, he being the last prophet in the line of Moses and Jesus.

Yet another example of an adaptation of myth for a differnt culture, in this case Arab.

Jewish myth was not original either. Moses' monotheism was not original;, neither was the flood myth.

stephan huller

I don't understand why we have to assume that Mark was not Jewish based on the evidence of a corrupt copy of his gospel circulating among the orthodox. Why is a white guy interested in the destruction of Jerusalem? Why's he so interested in the Jews? In Jewish writings? Expectations? It seems counter intuitive.

steve_bnk

The majority of us here are not religious at all, yet have an interest in discussing Jewsh religion.

Human curiosity, invention, and literary license have not changed that much. We are displaced 2000 years, but we are the same basic humans. Look at ourselves for insight back then.

You are rather pasionatly engaged in a theological debate about myths, history, and origins. I expect an age old human passion and passtime.

Didn't Aristotle or Herodotus mention Atlantis?

outhouse

more of a roman hellenistic feature given to many many mortal men and very few jews

Diogenes the Cynic

we don't have to know anything about it to know that the author of Mark had no contact with it.
Something like that, but I would not say the story had unknown roots. I would say that a real, historical crucifixion gave rise to a cult which died in its original form, but which had an offshoot that went European and evolved into its own Pagan mutation.
There are two many independent sources for this to be more plausible than an actual crucified cult leader.