Bede

Actually, A13, I can show Mark is subject to similar inventions himself. Remember MacDonald and his Homeric Gospel? Vork himself has said it was wrongheaded but is exactly the same method as he is using but with a different proof text. I'd bet that you could do it with anything else you like. Say Josephus and the Gospels (remember the theory that is doing rounds here). Vork's patterns don't exist except in his mind and Mark's mistakes are a defeater anyway. Someone who constructs his passages with that much care will get his plurals and tenses right.

It would be nice to see 'sceptics' acting sceptical for their own stuff for a change...

B

Vorkosigan

Bede, why do you keep baiting me? What is it you want? The only things I have invented/found on my own are the chiastic structures. Almost everything else I have sourced from published scholars -- including some of the structures, which I have only elaborated -- as my extensive and always growing list of references makes clear. A few new arguments are properly supported from sources and the text of Mark. If you have some doubt about a specific item, I will be happy to post the proper reference for it.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

That is precisely what you need to do in order to show that the methodology is flawed. Your subjective consideration is simply your opinion. More is required to turn your opinion into a conclusion based on specific evidence. Showing that the same method will reveal similar apparent patterns where there is no good reason to suspect the author of creating them would be an excellent way to accomplish that goal. For example, applying the "bible code" nonsense to Moby Dick and other classics to obtain similarly astounding predictions clearly shows that the methodology is flawed. It is not necessary that all of Vorkosigan's observations be legitimate for the overall notion that Mark's author relied on specific books of the HB in the construction of his story to be recognized.

That is clearly not necessarily true. I've worked with many students whose mechanics were quite poor while their ability to express themselves in writing was excellent.

Jehanne

So, there really was a "talking dog" who spoke to Peter! What breed do you think that he was? Are historians entitled to "speculate" on that question??

Bede

Jehanne, please learn to read. I didn't answer your question because it was stupid. All your other posts have been worthless too so please do not reply to me again. I will no longer be responding to you.

B

Jehanne

Obviously, I was not responding to your “post�, but your lack of response to my “final question� is simply perplexing. After all, if people truly rise from the dead, why not “talking dogs�??? (BTW, I was accepted into Mensa a decade or so ago...but, I make no claims as to having a “high IQ�. And, yes, some Mensans are stupid! But, it seems that you are the one who is ridiculing Professor Sheehan’s work, not me! :Cheeky: )

Chili

Yes but you still have a dog barking in your own life. After all, if there were post resurrection appearances and Jesus was crucified he must have risen from the dead.

The answer is simple, you either go by faith in the historic presentation or you go by myth and attach history to it. To mix these two is to have one leg in heaven and one on earth and that is exactly where hell is found . . . and it doesn't matter how PhD's Sheenan has.

I like A 13's "understory" concept that is exposed for it's own sake in Mark where it was taken from the OT method to be transported to John in the New Testament after the insight of Luke was added to it. It is a simple NT transformation that makes the 4 Gospels shine as if they were the good news to all of mankind.

markd

I wonder if the constant catfighting will end? You guys are fighting with someone who "re-found" jesus in a Jersey Mickey Dees. He wins by default.

Toto

Please stay on topic and avoid personal remarks.

Thanks for your consideration.

Toto
mod, BCH

Seeker2000

What do you mean with the fourfold typology of the gospel?

Well, if we think about whether the Gospel stories are true, we can't take the Gospels as evidence, can we? And if we evaluate the Gospels, we can either believe everything or think about how else those stories could have been created. I don't think it's wrong to speculate about that like Sheehan has done - if one keeps in mind that it is not definitely the absolute truth. But we don't know what really happened back then and which parts of the Gospels are fact and which parts are inventions, nobody can prove that. So I think it is ok and even desirable to think of alternatives to the stories as they are told in the NT texts. Why just say "I don't believe it" and leave it at that? If the literal interpretation is not the way it happened, there must be an alternative, so why not speculate about it? And the solution cannot be to just believe everything, then you would also have to believe the stories from the Qur'an and from the Vedas.

But it is true that an alternative explanation wouldn't necessarily be something a Christian had to ponder much about, because he already believes that the scriptures are true, even if there are natural explanations - so without any new evidence against them, he doesn't need to rethink his view. Maybe if he had never thought about natural explanations for the origins of the NT texts, but otherwise not.

What's all this "one leg in heaven, one on earth" stuff?
If you regard the resurrection story as myth, why can't you believe that the crucifixion did happen? We don't know with certainty which parts of the bible might be historical, but I don't see a problem with a crucifixion - we know people were crucified back then and it's also not a supernatural event. So it might have happened...

What are you actually talking about?