Freethought & Rationalism Archive

la70119 · 02-01-2012, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barre

The plot of gMark reveals some surprising, ir0onic conclusions--1) Jesus was proved wrong about his messianic idenitiy and mission. He was not the Messiah; 2) the Sanhedrin's verdict was upheld by Jesus' death. The expectation of an imminent establishment of the messianic age did not occur as Jesus expected; 3) the author's evaluation of Jesus is surprisngly expressed, of all people, by the centurion who lead the crucifixion detail. All three developments in the plot are ironic in the sense that the outcome of events were unexpected and surprising according gMark's portrayal of Jesus' last hours. In sum, Jesus is properly assessed as not a Messiah but rather as a "son of god," understood as a Roman would understand the term, where Jesus is concluded to have belonged to a special class of people (uios theou) with transcendent qualities. And with that gMark concludes his portrayal of Jesus. Jesus is portrayed as a tragic hero whose story was to inspire what good tragedies are supposed to according to Aristotle--pity, fear, catharsis. It is the story about a virtuous man who made a fatal mistake (hamartia) that fate exposed. Of course, the addition of the burial and ressurection episodes changes one's understanding of Jesus With the addition of these episodes, Mark presented Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1).

It is very much possible that the secret gMark ended with gMark 15:39 as opposed to the canonical one. the "Son of God" references would be the bookends to the entire tragedy. John Dominic Crossan argues as much and Stephan Huller quotes him here:

Quote:

John Dominic Crossan on Canonical Mark and Secret Mark:

Quote:

My proposal is that the original version of Mark's Gospel ended with the centurion's confession in 15:39. What comes afterward, from 15:40 through 16:8, was not in Secret Mark but stems from canonical Mark. I realize, of course, that such a claim lacks any external or manuscript evidence unless one retrojects the fact that redoing the ending of Mark became a small industry in the early church. The evidence for it is internal and circumstantial, tentative, hypothetical, and clearly controversial. But it fits very well with a Markan theology in which faith and hope despite persecution and death is much more important than visions, apparitions and even revelations. [John Dominic Crossan The Historical Life of Jesus p. 415 - 416]

It is very easy to see. Although Jesus goes out with a whimper (save the loud cry), he actually goes out with a bang! The whole stretch of the story, from gMark 1:1

Quote:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God

to gMark 15:39

Quote:

And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"

reads as one huge chiasmon. With the dramatic affirmation by the Centurion to close the story.

On the other hand, gMark 15;40 through 16:8 seems like a tackon, a pair of short blurbs to explain why Jesus had to, as we read in I Cor. 15, "appear" to Cephas/Peter et al through Paul, in a paraphrase of his words "as one untimely born", i.e., as a preemie.

la70119 · 02-01-2012, 05:16 PM

PS Some archaeologists have analyzed the three tombs in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, i.e., the Holy Sepulchre itself and the twin tombs of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. It turns out, these three tombs were once part of the Sanherdin's preliminary entombment complex for those buried as criminals who violated Jewish Law.

Two articles from The Bible and Interpretation website:

Jewish Burials

Obscurities around the Tomb of the Holy Sepulcher

Quote from the second article:

Quote:

According to Kloner, Jesus' tomb was smaller compared to standard tombs in Jerusalem, and, at the same time, the tomb was also standard or normal. We do know and agree that Jesus' tomb was indeed smaller than a normal, standard family tomb. Furthermore, according to Don Bahat, "In the course of restoration work in the Holy Sepulchre Church a hitherto unknown passage to this [Jesus'] tomb was found beneath the rotunda" (Bahat, 16, 18). This tomb, Bahat says, is the so-called Nikodemos' (or Joseph of Arimathea's) tomb, about 25 feet west of the Edicule, the structure that preserves the traditional location of Christ's tomb under the rotunda.8 A passage has been discovered that connected both tombs, yet according to the Mishna, familial tombs are not supposed to be linked or connected. The tomb beneath the rotunda was not a "normal" or a "standard" tomb. However, we believe it is indeed the temporary tomb of Jesus. It was significantly smaller than the standard\normal tombs; it was different in structure; it was connected to another tomb nearby. What does this "link" mean? The best and probably the only answer is that they were both Sanhedrin tombs. Moreover, they were linked when built to allow people to take care of bodies and bones, and then move them from one tomb to the other without being exposed to sunlight and to the danger of a defilement "leak". If we are correct in our interpretation and both tombs were the Sanhedrin tombs, then the tombs were meant to be borrowed and temporary by their purpose and structure. Neither tomb can be the permanent burial place of Jesus. Jesus' permanent burial tomb cannot be in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. We must search somewhere else.

Of course, those who believe the Bible tells the truth about all this will not accept this. Which means the archaeologists who have come to the above conclusion are on the right track.

Footnote: Presuming an historical Jesus here for the sake of argument, if the Romans crucified him they would have NOT have released his body for burial especially since he pled guilty to crimen maiestas (high treason), except to Jewish legal authorities had they also convicted him. Otherwise, the Romans would have buried him themselves.

la70119 · 02-01-2012, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Since you want us to go that route, what sort of Salvation history are we talking about? Certainly not PERSONAL Salvation! It was NATIONAL Salvation. And who were the national Saviours of Israel at the mythical beginning of that Nation when it was "liberated" from Egypt and 40 years later, took over Canaanland?

The national Saviour was first Moses, then it was Joshua.

I made mention of salvation history simply to indicate that that is what a lot of the OT is about - an interpretation of history, a searching for meaning within history, ie history is ground zero. The rest, the salvation history, is the story. Moses and Joshua - figures in a story about the origins of the nation of Israel. Likewise, JC and 'Paul' - reverse the roles. 'Paul' leads the escape from the Law that enslaves - and JC leads the way into that promised land of milk and honey, miracles and healing.

You forget, you forget that the writers of the New Testament wrenched the Septuagint in coming up with their own salvation "history" which is COMPLETELY at odds with Israel's national Salvation history.

Quote:

Josephus is interested in messianic figures, but these are not nobody figures: Agrippa I - and the OT story of Joseph. Philip the Tetrarch and the most beautiful story of the land that is the ambition of nature....

And the fact that they were not nobody figures is shown by King Herod or the Romans going after the lot of them, massacring their followers or sometimes capturing them and crucifying them, both leaders and followers. (Although Josephus refrains from explicitly stating this except for that incident under Pilate on Mt Gerizim.)

And I don't think he was talking of Agrippa I and Philip the Tetrarch as messianic figures. He only called VESPASIAN the awaited messiah (a ruler out of Judah) of his day.

Jesus, on the other hand, is allowed to run free and appears not to have been crucified, if Ant. 18.3.3 is to be believed. Pilate only "condemned him to the cross at the suggestion of the chief men among us." :huh:

Quote:

I can see how it could have been interpolated. But remember, it's in the earliest fragment containing First Corinthians, P46 (ca. 175 - 225 CE). We have ZERO physical evidence it was interpolated. Other scholars will have to test Robert Price's hypothesis and come to their own conclusions (I'm sure Apostate Abe and aa5874 will have choice words to say about this).

I don't go along with the interpolation idea. Yes, it's a long thread to have to go through. My position is stated here.

Like I said, it has to be tested.

aa5874 · 02-01-2012, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

It is very much possible that the secret gMark ended with gMark 15:39 as opposed to the canonical one. the "Son of God" references would be the bookends to the entire tragedy. John Dominic Crossan argues as much and Stephan Huller quotes him here:

John Dominic Crossan on Canonical Mark and Secret Mark:

Quote:

My proposal is that the original version of Mark's Gospel ended with the centurion's confession in 15:39. What comes afterward, from 15:40 through 16:8, was not in Secret Mark but stems from canonical Mark. I realize, of course, that such a claim lacks any external or manuscript evidence unless one retrojects the fact that redoing the ending of Mark became a small industry in the early church. The evidence for it is internal and circumstantial, tentative, hypothetical, and clearly controversial. But it fits very well with a Markan theology in which faith and hope despite persecution and death is much more important than visions, apparitions and even revelations. [John Dominic Crossan The Historical Life of Jesus p. 415 - 416]

John Dominic is merely speculating. Any one can Speculate without evidence.

Chili · 02-01-2012, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The earliest Jesus story had NOTHING whatsoever to do with a new religion or the start of a new cult or ritual of Human Sacrifice.

The earliest gMark was an EXPLANATION, using Hebrew Scriptures, for the Fall of the Jewish Temple, the destruction of the Jerusalem and the Calamities c 70 CE.

gMark was written AFTER the destruction, not before.

Sure, it is a metaphysical concept so they salvaged it, by adoption maybe since it is a very nice image, or maybe that is what the 30 silver pieces was all about.

la70119 · 02-01-2012, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

It is very much possible that the secret gMark ended with gMark 15:39 as opposed to the canonical one. the "Son of God" references would be the bookends to the entire tragedy. John Dominic Crossan argues as much and Stephan Huller quotes him here:

John Dominic Crossan on Canonical Mark and Secret Mark:

John Dominic is merely speculating. Any one can Speculate without evidence.

:notworthy:

Except for the internal evidence, where gMark reached the end of its mega-χιασμόν at 15:39 and leaves the reader on the plain of denouement. That, and the χιασμόν is bracketed at both ends by the words, "Son of God."

aa5874 · 02-01-2012, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

It is very much possible that the secret gMark ended with gMark 15:39 as opposed to the canonical one. the "Son of God" references would be the bookends to the entire tragedy. John Dominic Crossan argues as much and Stephan Huller quotes him here:

John Dominic Crossan on Canonical Mark and Secret Mark:

John Dominic is merely speculating. Any one can Speculate without evidence.

:notworthy:

Except for the internal evidence, where gMark reached the end of its mega-χιασμόν at 15:39 and leaves the reader on the plain of denouement. That, and the χιασμόν is bracketed at both ends by the words, "Son of God."

Do you really want to use gMark as evidence? Well, the internal evidence in gMark is that Jesus was a Phantom.

Jesus walked on sea-water and transfigured. See Mark 6.48-49 and 9.2.

Please explain which Jesus was the Son of God at the crucifixion in gMark?

Was it the post TRANSFIGURED Jesus?

Let us NOT waste time with BELIEVERS of Myth Fables!!

la70119 · 02-02-2012, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

According to Duke University, the earliest manuscripts of the Pauline writings precede those of Acts....

The very link you provided dates the Pauline writings [P 46] to the mid 3rd century ca. 250 AD.

Did you read the link? "Romans-Hebrews, P46, 200 A.D." and "Acts, P45, 250 A.D."

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is NO known evidence from any non-aplogetic sources of antiquity that the Pauline letters to the Churches were composed in the 1st century and BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish c 70 CE

No disagreement here. It's you and me against "the received consensus of biblical scholarship."

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

and before Acts of the Apostles.

Except for the recognized and accepted dates of the earliest manuscripts. Subtract several decades equally from each one and you STILL have Paul's letters written prior to Acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Internal evidence does NOT support the claim that Acts was composed After the Pauline writings.

It is the COMPLETE opposite.

Romans 15

Quote:

23 But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to see you, 24 I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. 25 Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there....

30 I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me. 31 Pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea and that my service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there, 32 so that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and together with you be refreshed.

Romans: written on his last trip back to J'lem.

Acts 19

Quote:

After all this had happened, Paul decided to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia. “After I have been there,” he said, “I must visit Rome also.”

Acts 21

Quote:

10 After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’”

Romans 16

Quote:

Gaius, whose hospitality I and the whole church here enjoy, sends you his greetings.

Does this sound like a man in prison or under house-arrest to you?

I Corinthians 16

Quote:

3 Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. 4 If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me. 5 After I go through Macedonia, I will come to you—for I will be going through Macedonia.

Notice, he was not yet put under final custody. He's still a free man, travelling.

2 Corinthians 12

Quote:

Now I am ready to visit you for the third time, and I will not be a burden to you, because what I want is not your possessions but you.

Notice, he's still a free man.

Galatians 2

Quote:

10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. 11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

He seems to have been writing from Antioch or somewhere else in the East. He's clearly bad-mouthing the Jerusalem Church leadership here. But what he says about the instructions are completely different than what was in the letter from the J'lem Church. In fact, how he carries on about the Law throughout Galatians leads me to think he KNEW about the letter, but will NOT deliver it.

Phillipians 1

Quote:

Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ.

This is a clue that he had recently been arrested in J'lem. So this would be one of his last letters if not the last.

Quote:

1 So when we could stand it no longer, we thought it best to be left by ourselves in Athens. 2 We sent Timothy, who is our brother and God’s fellow workera in spreading the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith, 3 so that no one would be unsettled by these trials. You know quite well that we were destined for them. 4 In fact, when we were with you, we kept telling you that we would be persecuted. And it turned out that way, as you well know.

6 But Timothy has just now come to us from you and has brought good news about your faith and love.

This appears to have been written when he was in Athens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The author of Acts did NOT ever claim Paul wrote any letters to Churches all over the Roman Empire.

The author of Acts could have been ignorant of the letters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In fact, in Acts, it is claimed that it was JAMES who suggested that the JERUSALEM Church writer letters to be Hand delivered by Paul and his group.

The author of Paul's Epistles (the genuine ones) did NOT ever claim that James asked him to hand deliver the Jerusalem Church writer letters to his group.

Galatians 2

Quote:

All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Just remember the poor. nothing about keeping certain parts of the Noachide Code so they could still qualify to be Jews.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, the most significant evidence that Acts was written BEFORE the Pauline letters to the Church can be found in the fact that ALL Apologetic sources that substantially mentioned the activities of Paul stated that he wrote Epistles EXCEPT the author of Acts.

The author of Acts dedicated 13 chapters to Paul and mentioned Numerous cities where Paul traveled and never once stated Paul wrote any letter to a Church at any time.

In virtually ALL Church writings Paul was known for his letters to the Churches EXCEPT in Acts of the Apostles.

Clement of Rome "First Epistle"

Irenaeus "Against Heresies 3.22

Tertullian's "Against Marcion"

Clement of Alexandria "Instructor"

Origen "De Principiis"

Quote:

the Apostle Paul has given us numerous examples in the first Epistle to the Corinthians....

The author of Acts wrote NOT one thing about a Pauline letter to any Church even though he was a supposed WITNESS of the activities of Paul his close companion.

You have to remember, Paul ended up in house arrest Rome so he would have given copies of his letters to the church that was existing in Rome. And since he is on record of despising the the "super apostles" in J'lem why would he give THEM copies of his letters?

Remember, this is the author who got his historic facts screwed up (Theudas, still in the future from the perspectives of Acts 5, put into the three-decade distant past?) so I'm not surprised he would be ignorant of Paul's letters. But why would Paul keep his letters from the author of Acts unless he had something to hide? :huh:

Problem with internal evidence, all this, letters and Acts, could have all been made up.

We still have the EXTERNAL evidence: P45 and P46.

Quote:

Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the Pauline letters to the Churches.

Not. proven.

la70119 · 02-02-2012, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

:notworthy:

Except for the internal evidence, where gMark reached the end of its mega-χιασμόν at 15:39 and leaves the reader on the plain of denouement. That, and the χιασμόν is bracketed at both ends by the words, "Son of God."

Do you really want to use gMark as evidence? Well, the internal evidence in gMark is that Jesus was a Phantom.

Jesus walked on sea-water and transfigured. See Mark 6.48-49 and 9.2.

Please explain which Jesus was the Son of God at the crucifixion in gMark?

Was it the post TRANSFIGURED Jesus?

Let us NOT waste time with BELIEVERS of Myth Fables!!

I am talking about the STRUCTURE of the Myth-fable, not the "truth" of the fable itself.

:banghead:

Montgomery Scott · 02-03-2012, 10:31 AM

I would like to know the mechanics of how a crucifixion was done.

Let's take a normal sized man. Lay him down on the cross.

Questions:

How big with the nails have to be?

Where would they be put on the hands? I would guess it would be the heel of the hand. What would keep the weight of the body to tear the muscles of the hand right off? Or if not, how much blood would come out?

What about the feet? Crossing them together would need a bigger nail. Can't really nail them seperately because there is only one piece of wood behind the foot. Possibly the vertical piece is much larger, round like logs.

I would think rope would be involved.

I would think that this would take a while for the person to die, which to me is fairly needless and could be much better dispatched as a beheading or something similar.

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

02-03-2012, 10:31 AM	#170
Montgomery Scott Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Earth Posts: 2,770	I would like to know the mechanics of how a crucifixion was done. Let's take a normal sized man. Lay him down on the cross. Questions: How big with the nails have to be? Where would they be put on the hands? I would guess it would be the heel of the hand. What would keep the weight of the body to tear the muscles of the hand right off? Or if not, how much blood would come out? What about the feet? Crossing them together would need a bigger nail. Can't really nail them seperately because there is only one piece of wood behind the foot. Possibly the vertical piece is much larger, round like logs. I would think rope would be involved. I would think that this would take a while for the person to die, which to me is fairly needless and could be much better dispatched as a beheading or something similar.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.