spin

I asked Susan2, how does she test the veracity of her claim that this god person is omnipotent? I said to her, "Short answer is that you simply can't." Then she gave us the long version. I also said, "Stop the logorrhea."


spin

rlogan

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, beyond being a vacuous "you shriek like a little girl".

The Bible is from the first word to the last a melodrama. Creating worlds, destroying them with floods, parting seas, crucifixion, God on earth. The end of the universe stuff here.

So talk about a specious criticism.


Whatever you are talking about bears little relation to what I said.



The destruction I was referring to was the Roman Siege of Jerusalem in 70CE. Jesus is widely believed to have prophesized about that in Mark ("Not one stone left standing").

The Romans did destroy Jerusalem then, and again in the Bar Kochba revolt crushed them utterly and dispersed them like ants.

Well regardless maybe you are on crack or drinking or my senility is overtaking me.

rlogan

Yea baby! Now yer talkin. Could not agree more.


I think I am engaged in that right now. I have been going through Mark and am up through the fifth book removing the following material:

- Direct HB quote mining

- Miracles

- Gratuitous "he went, it came to pass, and in those days filler.

I am through ch 5 and into six: five thousand words and guess what is left so far?

Zero.


So spin the historicists may be able to pull an end run around this whole project.

Since there was zero tradition to convey, it is impossible for anyone to have forgotten any of it.

Susan2

Yes. They say that ginsing helps, but I wouldn't put to much faith in that if I were you.

Maybe fish oil? 3,000 mg's a day is ususally recommended, and it helps with cholesterol.

A little tid-bit that I usually share regarding fish oil, and one that most people don't know, and I have never read anywhere: Take it with fresh fruit, (example:1/2 an apple, maybe a whole), or, fresh vegetables, (ex. stalk of celery)............and you possitively will not get the fish oil after burp.

mountainman

The writers were establishing a literary tetrarchy - a greek word meaning the leadership of four people. It is clear that the writers were unconcerned with the individual foibles of the four boneheads, and instead relied upon the incidence (or otherwise) of "what was agreed between the tetrarchy of apostles in an explicit tabulation of sayings we now call the Eusebian Canon Tables. The power of the tetrarchy of boneheads was that they were not one, nor two, nor three, but four. This impressed the ancient populace, most of whom could not count past one. Such utter simplicity is echoed in the comment of Ammianus ... the plain and simple religion of the christians.

Vinnie

Though transmission cannot be ruled out I tend to view this as Markan redaction. Mark's portraiture of the disciples is more unrealistic than that of the Pharisees. It is a Markan hobby-horse IMHO and trying to figure out why is a complicated endeavor.

JoeWallack

JW:
Here is my guess (how it could have been):

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

Papias is potentially the key to understanding the source of the Gospels but as is often the case, in the opposite way from OCD assertian. Papias is evidence that the Gospel intent is to discredit the Disciples and not credit them.

As always, the only thing we can be absolutely certain of is that if there was HJ there was no historical witness that witnessed the impossible. All theories should flow from this Truth.

Historical witness than would have witnessed a PJ (possible Jesus). In my theory this would have been Peter, James el all who would have talked about what Jesus said and did (just like Papias said). Since Historical witness has memories there is no need for Gospels/Books or Revelation. That is for those without memories.

The original Gospel ("Mark") clearly discredits the Disciples. I demonstrated this in Mark's view of the disciples and even more so in "The Simontic Problem" - An Inventory Of "Mark's" Negative Casting Of Peter where I demonstrate that a major theme of "Mark" is to first create formulaic definitions of Disciple failure and than show Peter specifically and the Disciple in general exactly meeting the formula requirement. This is why the Forged ending(s) of "Mark" are so important The Original Ending of "Mark". Debate - James Snapp, Jr. verses Joseph Wallack as it would be the only significant portion of "Mark" that would counter the discrediting.

The other Gospels, while wanting to credit the Disciples (just as the Forged endings wanted to), are still stuck with a base of Disciple discrediting because "Mark" is still their primary source. This tells us that the other Gospels had no access to historical witness because why else would they still use a source with a primary objective of discrediting historical witness if they wanted to credit historical witness.

The original Gospel than was likely written by a non-witness, with no memories whose mindset was Revelation (like Paul). This frees the "witness" from the bonds of the possible. "Mark" than is discrediting historical witness which witnessed memories of a PJ that was an itineRant teacher and faith healer (in Israel) = The first half of "Mark", BF (before transFiguring). "Mark" is crediting Revelation in the second half, AF, with the Impossible significance of the Passion (like Paul and beyond Israel). Note that "Mark's" journey is quick (less than a year) in order to minimize the significance of HJ. Subsequent Gospels, wanting to rehabilitate HJ, than gradually increase its life leading to the ultimate historicist, Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons").

This than is your possible link between the Disciples and the Gospels:

1) Disciples witness possible Jesus.

2) Non-witness discredits Disciples and writes "Mark", based on Revelation, to witness IJ (Impossible Jesus). "Mark" is a Reaction (negative) to historical witness.

3) Other non-witnesses (mis)take "Mark" as historical witness and rehabilitate "Mark's" disciples as being credited.

"Mark" may have existed during Papias but Papias, an orthodox, recognizes it as fictional Revelation and that is why he prefers historical witness to Gospels/Books. Gospels/Books/Epistles are needed by those who want the impossible based on Revelation so they have something to Interpret.

Marcion's "Luke" may have been the second Gospel, which again was ignored by the orthodox. This would explain why the orthodox identify Marcion as the first user of any Gospel and the orthodox do not refer to the Gospels until Justin.

Just as "Mark" was a Reaction to historical witness, so too was "Mark" with the forged ending, "Matthew" and "Luke/Acts" Reactions by the orthodox to Gnostic Gospels (original "Mark" and "Luke").



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

mountainman

Dont be so sure that stupidity was not written into the
long and untrodden path. Eusebius (3.39.13) also says
about Papias .....

Zero tradition being adopted and urged by a lineage
of boneheads with very limited understanding.

spin

Do you really feel like trusting the Eusebian Papias? What he/they claimed about the gospels is evidently wrong about both our Matthew and Mark. This is not a good track record.


spin

dog-on

Kind of.

The disciples signify Israel. Mark is, on one level, an explanation for why the Jewish God rejects Israel and instead gives his salvation to the gentiles.

If you notice, the only people that get it, in Mark, are gentiles.