Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
12-12-2012, 11:12 PM | #1 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: California
Posts: 138
|
Jesus: Messianic Pretender as Aristotlean Tragic Hero
My arguments regarding the existence and interpretation of pMark exceeds this forum's space limitations. Therefore, I have provided the following link so that the whole piece may be viewed.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblic...hip/message/36 What makes the essay very long is that I quote the entire book of Mark. However, it is only meant to be scanned to view with two Markan themes occur and therefore which pericopae are to be assigned to Mark's expansion of pMark. |
12-13-2012, 12:58 AM | #2 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bordeaux France
Posts: 2,796
|
For the reader :
pMark means "proto-Mark" or "Ur-Markus". These terms all refer to the theory that there is an earlier version of gMark that has been editorially expanded and so produced the final form of the gospel. [lmbarre] |
12-13-2012, 07:30 AM | #3 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
|
Quote:
|
|
12-13-2012, 08:20 AM | #4 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
You appear ignorant of the fact that many authors used gMark and declared Publicly that Jesus was BORN of a Ghost. The author of gMatthew used virtually 100% of gMark and REALIZED and INTERPRETED gMark's Jesus as the Son of a Ghost. The author of gLuke REALIZED the very same thing after using gMark and gMatthew--There is ONLY one way to INTERPRET gMark--he was FATHERED by a Ghost-- Even the author of the Long gMark who used 100% of the short gMark publicly declared that Jesus came from the dead and commissioned the disciples to PREACH the Gospel. This is EXTREMELY Significant. The commission to preach the Gospel by Jesus was SPECIFICALLY commanded by a Resurrected Jesus. BEFORE the supposed Jesus was dead he NEVER commanded anyone to tell the Jews or anyone else that he was the Messiah and the Son of the Blessed. Remarkably, the entire story of Jesus in gMark is filled with fiction. Virtually everything about Jesus must be fiction or invented in the short gMark--from baptism to the resurrection. The author of the Long gMark added more fiction with the post resurrection visit and ascension. The author of gMatthew added even more fiction with the conception and birth of Jesus and expanded every story with more fictitious details. The author of gLuke again corroborates and Refines the Fiction in the short gMark, the Long gMark and gMatthew with supposed "eyewitnesses". Effectively, the earliest story of Jesus is WELL ATTESTED Fiction. |
|
12-13-2012, 12:07 PM | #5 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
|
Quote:
Then notice also that even in the longer ending they added fuel to the fire by stating that Jesus went up to take his seat at the right hand of God while he should been on the left, because the right side is where there was no more fish left in John 21. So this Jesus was sitting there, I suppose, like a Voodoo zombie with a smile on his face and nothing to eat. More important, however, is that the one who remained was identified as The Lord instead of Christ, to say that God had forsaken him on the cross and so Mark was a tragedy that was poured from the cup of God's anger, or he would be properly identified as in John. This writing style was called Lexischemy wherein they mixed tragedy with comedy to befuddle the spectator who in the end thinks it was a comedy instead of tragedy. Shakespeare was good at this too wherein he wrote Macbeth as a slam against the C of E and was celebrated by all instead of quatered as they promised they would. His tools were known as: homonymity, amphiboly, synthesis, diairesis, and prosidy to make known the difference between so called sheep-humpers and goat-humpers, while only the later are known to close their eyes to feel better. Inferred here is that with their eyes open they see the wrong thing, which in turn is what the spit in the eye miracle is all about. |
|
12-13-2012, 01:28 PM | #6 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
|
Quote:
Here's my own take here on sources in the Gospel of Mark: Gospel Eyewitnesses Post #52 or for a less cluttered list see another forum at: Argument Post #206 See Post #299 in that thread for a list of my posts that present my case for seven written eyewitness records about Jesus. Here's one prime source I delineate there: The verses attributable to Peter are these: Mark 1:16-28, 2:17-3:5, 5:1-43, 8:27-9:13, 9:30-31, 9:38-42, 10:13-34, 11:27-33, 12:18-23, 12:35-13:15, 13:28-31, , 28-42, 14:48-52, 62-72; 15:3-5, 18-21, 23-25,, 34-40, and continuing in Luke 24:1-3,,11-12, 36-47, 51;; and Acts 1:6-4:31, 5:17-42, 9:32-11:18, 12:1-17. With some minor alterations to the above (like at 1:16-20) these are the verses I present as from Peter in the text presented at my thread in progress, Gospel Eyewitness Sources |
|
12-15-2012, 02:16 PM | #7 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
|
In addition to the overall concept being flawed, there are technical glitches in your text. You talk about motifs in bold, but there is nothing in bold. I guess you mean the CAPITALIZATIONS, but they are scattered through both your original and your expanded text, and seem not to relate to your two key words "immediately" and amazement, nor to contrasting themes in the original vs. the expansion.
Your second illustration of an insertion at Mark 3:22-30 is nevertheless NOT shown it italics in your complete text of gMark. Where "immediately" occurs inconveniently in the middle of your proposed original, you single out the single sentence as an expansion: 8:10. There is a displacement in your text from Mark 5:20 to 5:32 so it is placed before 5:1. "43" is inserted in error at 5:32. Do you have permission to post a complete text that is 90% of your posting? What translation is this that is so faithful in translating "Euthus" as "Immediately"? (Most don't). I compared "immediately" to my separation os strands and did not find correlation. Scholars have generally given up trying to find stylistic differences within gMark. |
12-15-2012, 09:06 PM | #8 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: California
Posts: 138
|
Quote:
Compelling evidence that Mark is not a unified composition makes it exegetically fallacious to ignore composition criticism, no matter what may be the scholarly trend. Some have argued that it is an authrorial technique to "sandwich" pericope. But I hold that it is a marker of a redactor's technique, not that of an author. |
|
12-16-2012, 11:07 AM | #9 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
|
Quote:
Can you make any determination that this text was not a group of people telling a scribe what they wanted him to record.? |
|
12-16-2012, 11:59 AM | #10 | |||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: California
Posts: 138
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|