Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 10-31-2012, 06:51 PM

Steve, if you're right, then it stands to reason that the author of Luke had very specific reasons and criteria for whatever he did or did not believe about his Christ as portrayed in GMark.
So the question is what are those criteria??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

First Like doesn't claim to have witnessed any of the events he talks about in his Gospel. He claims to have made an investigation for the purpose of setting forth an orderly account.

Many modern scholars think at least part of his investigation included use of the Gospel of Mark

When Luke leaves things from the Gospel of Mark out of his own account the simplest explanation is that he did not believe Mark's account.

It appears that Luke did not regard Mark as inerrant.

Steve

Adam · 10-31-2012, 09:07 PM

Duv,
Out of ten replies, you pick one that has been pretty well refuted by all the others. Once again you extract from this forum whatever suits your most wild imaginations of what would best flatter your extremist brand of orthodox Jew.

Toto · 10-31-2012, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Steve, if you're right, then it stands to reason that the author of Luke had very specific reasons and criteria for whatever he did or did not believe about his Christ as portrayed in GMark.
So the question is what are those criteria??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

First Like doesn't claim to have witnessed any of the events he talks about in his Gospel. He claims to have made an investigation for the purpose of setting forth an orderly account.

Many modern scholars think at least part of his investigation included use of the Gospel of Mark

When Luke leaves things from the Gospel of Mark out of his own account the simplest explanation is that he did not believe Mark's account.

It appears that Luke did not regard Mark as inerrant.

Steve

There is no evidence that "Luke" had any sort of criteria of historical reliability. If anything, Luke's criteria were theologically based.

Duvduv · 11-01-2012, 12:20 AM

Thank you for your unprovoked personal attack.
I picked the one whose author I wanted to hear from.
I didn't know you were a mind reader or that you had a crystal ball.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Duv,
Out of ten replies, you pick one that has been pretty well refuted by all the others. Once again you extract from this forum whatever suits your most wild imaginations of what would best flatter your extremist brand of orthodox Jew.

PhilosopherJay · 11-01-2012, 05:11 AM

Hi Vorkosigan,

This sounds reasonable.

I'm wondering what is the earliest reference to any of these events between ch. 6 and ch. 11. outside of Matthew?

Wamly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

GMark between ch 6 and ch 11 has been extensively altered by an editor. Because the block of missing parts is long and contiguous, I'm with those who argue that the writer of GLuke had a copy of GMark without those passages.

Vorkosigan

Duvduv · 11-01-2012, 06:50 AM

So this assumes that he did have access to a GMark with these stories that he rejected, as opposed to another text that didn't have them to begin with.

Why would he otherwise reject these particular stories for his Jesus of miracles? After all, there is no harm in terms of presenting his Christ with supernatural abilities of one kind or another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Steve, if you're right, then it stands to reason that the author of Luke had very specific reasons and criteria for whatever he did or did not believe about his Christ as portrayed in GMark.
So the question is what are those criteria??

There is no evidence that "Luke" had any sort of criteria of historical reliability. If anything, Luke's criteria were theologically based.

Toto · 11-01-2012, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

...

Why would he otherwise reject these particular stories for his Jesus of miracles? After all, there is no harm in terms of presenting his Christ with supernatural abilities of one kind or another.

Read the variety of possibilities in my first post in this thread. Supernatural was not a problem, but these miracles all happened in gentile territory, or emphasized the non-material nature of Jesus.

I tend to favor Robbins' literary explanation.

Duvduv · 11-01-2012, 09:21 AM

Which of these cases involved "gentile territory" other than #4??

1. Jesus walking on the sea of Galilee (Mk 06:45-52, Mt 14:22-33)
2. Healing many at Gennesaret (Mk 06:53-56, Mt 14:34-36)
3. Controversy with Pharisees over eating with unwashed hands (Mk 07:01-13, Mt 15:01-09)
4. Exorcising the daughter of the woman from Tyre/Sidon (Mk 07:24-30, Mt 15:21-28)
5. Healing (with saliva) the deaf-mute in region of Decapolis (Mk 07:31-37)
6. Feeding the 4000 in the wilderness (Mk 08:01-10, Mt 15:32-39)
7. Controversy with Pharisees over a sign and warning of leaven of Pharisees and Herod (Mk 08:11-21, Mt 16:01-12)
8. Healing the blind man (after two attempts) (Mk 08:22-26).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

...

Why would he otherwise reject these particular stories for his Jesus of miracles? After all, there is no harm in terms of presenting his Christ with supernatural abilities of one kind or another.

Read the variety of possibilities in my first post in this thread. Supernatural was not a problem, but these miracles all happened in gentile territory, or emphasized the non-material nature of Jesus.

I tend to favor Robbins' literary explanation.

Toto · 11-01-2012, 09:42 AM

Duvduv - go back and read post 6 and click on the links? The answer is there.

Duvduv · 11-01-2012, 11:14 AM

Sorry, Toto. I just did, and I still don't see how the deleted miracles occured in gentile territory outside of Judea or Galilee (except for #4).
Besides, there is nothing in Judaism or anywhere else that would preclude a Jewish miracle worker from performing miracles for non-Jews in the Holy Land or anywhere else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Duvduv - go back and read post 6 and click on the links? The answer is there.

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

10-31-2012, 09:07 PM	#12
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Duv, Out of ten replies, you pick one that has been pretty well refuted by all the others. Once again you extract from this forum whatever suits your most wild imaginations of what would best flatter your extremist brand of orthodox Jew.

11-01-2012, 09:42 AM	#19
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Duvduv - go back and read post 6 and click on the links? The answer is there.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.