Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-09-2012, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

not argueing

just bored buddy, just bored

The cure for boredom? Operationalizing the power of Christ in the age of atheism. Take a look at Constantin Brunner's Our Christ: The Revolt of the mystical genius. From the preface:

This book gives one the courage not to read the authentic words of Christ in the New Testament in the well-worn and traditional way. The author has with great skill and infinite patience removed all the paint and gilding that has been used to paint over the Son of Man, who is one with the spirit of the Father. The dressed up idol of superstition is destroyed and Christ, the human figure of radiant mysticism re-appears; he is resurrected as the greatest of humanity's Spiritual elite.

Dare to read the book.

There is no better cure for boredom than this book.

I dont do anti-science. Or mythical science

Im pro-science

You use the Bible for history so you are NOT pro-science at all. You are a pro at imagination "science" aka speculation.

Your "no tax Jesus" is a product of your imagination science.

No source of antiquity mentioned your imagination.

No Robots · 05-09-2012, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Your knowledge of all things related to Christianity is utterly superficial.

And you have an affected erudition.

outhouse · 05-09-2012, 11:05 AM

Quote:

The bottom line is that the only figure whoever 'saw' Jesus was Simon Peter.

that has no credibility.

Quote:

The sources are universally in agreement that the Gospel of Mark - the first gospel - was indirectly developed from this single source.

also false.

oral and written tradition from varied sources.

only later as churches progressed was this work attributed to johnmark as a single source

stephan huller · 05-09-2012, 12:27 PM

The gospel of Mark is consistently referenced as being from peter.

stephan huller · 05-09-2012, 12:35 PM

that a jewish text could be based on a single testimony is odd

stephan huller · 05-09-2012, 12:51 PM

Numbers 35:30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.

Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

Paul echoes the same logic as does Matthew. How then could Mark establish that Jesus was whatever he was based only on the testimony of Simon Peter? Something is missing here? Jesus doesnt even make the two or three testimonies of Moses demanded by the Samaritans. Odd

stephan huller · 05-09-2012, 02:02 PM

The point is that it is unlikely that Mark could have tried to prove that Jesus was the messiah based on a single witness (= Peter). The point of the gospel isn't to prove that Jesus was the Jewish messiah.

outhouse · 05-09-2012, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The gospel of Mark is consistently referenced as being from peter.

only attributed at a later date by early church fathers.

we know its not the case.

stephan huller · 05-09-2012, 02:18 PM

It is a remarkably consistent tradition which came from somewhere before 170 CE. Indeed if Papias is to be believed sometime in the early second century is the latest the original statement could have been made. There is a difference between engaging in critical scholarship and merely striking down anything that stands in the way of free-spirited speculation. The understanding that Mark wrote based on Peter's authority comes at as from every direction (Alexandria, Rome, Hierapolis). If the Church Fathers could have made up anything they would have said that Mark saw Jesus, but they didn't. Instead the developed an unusual hearsay scenario which can't have been planned. No one wants to make their tradition develop from secondhand sources. Imagine if Judaism or Islam said that their records were not written by Moses or Mohammed but 'some guy.' It is incredible to have the authority of the second Torah develop from 'some guy' whose identify and authority is never made clear. It is so weird and counterproductive it has to be based on something real. It's like that airliner going down in Indonesia today. The question is - are Russian planes shitty? Why else would a plane fall from the sky?

Solo · 05-09-2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I am a Jew so I can talk to myself and have a discussion with a published Jewish scholar about the origins of Christianity.

Yes, yes, we know that one: whenever two Jews talk, there are three opnions on everything.

Best,
Jiri

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-09-2012, 12:27 PM	#54
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The gospel of Mark is consistently referenced as being from peter.

05-09-2012, 12:35 PM	#55
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	that a jewish text could be based on a single testimony is odd

05-09-2012, 12:51 PM	#56
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Numbers 35:30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Paul echoes the same logic as does Matthew. How then could Mark establish that Jesus was whatever he was based only on the testimony of Simon Peter? Something is missing here? Jesus doesnt even make the two or three testimonies of Moses demanded by the Samaritans. Odd

05-09-2012, 02:02 PM	#57
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The point is that it is unlikely that Mark could have tried to prove that Jesus was the messiah based on a single witness (= Peter). The point of the gospel isn't to prove that Jesus was the Jewish messiah.

05-09-2012, 02:18 PM	#59
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It is a remarkably consistent tradition which came from somewhere before 170 CE. Indeed if Papias is to be believed sometime in the early second century is the latest the original statement could have been made. There is a difference between engaging in critical scholarship and merely striking down anything that stands in the way of free-spirited speculation. The understanding that Mark wrote based on Peter's authority comes at as from every direction (Alexandria, Rome, Hierapolis). If the Church Fathers could have made up anything they would have said that Mark saw Jesus, but they didn't. Instead the developed an unusual hearsay scenario which can't have been planned. No one wants to make their tradition develop from secondhand sources. Imagine if Judaism or Islam said that their records were not written by Moses or Mohammed but 'some guy.' It is incredible to have the authority of the second Torah develop from 'some guy' whose identify and authority is never made clear. It is so weird and counterproductive it has to be based on something real. It's like that airliner going down in Indonesia today. The question is - are Russian planes shitty? Why else would a plane fall from the sky?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.