steve_bnk

Look at the character of Buddha who also has no historical corroboration.

The anecdotal tale is an aristocrat who born privilege and isolated in comport gets a glimpse of the human condition and goes walkout seeking answers.

There is no way to separate what an historical Buddha, HB :Cheeky:,
actually preached and what was colored by the first Buddhist writers, who were prolific.


Interesting comparison. Not a deity in the tale, but a man of high birth goes out and willingly suffers human suffering , figures out how to bring people to salvation spiritualy and an end to suffering, and dies in the end.

Onias

Let's start at the beginning. We know we do not have the original manuscripts of the gospels. We only have copies of copies of copies, etc. We may never know with certainty who wrote the original gospels, what their content was, or for what agenda. But we do know the extant gospels survived only because the Roman authorities allowed them to survive and even proliferate. If these extant gospels were subversive to the Pax Romana, they would have been suppressed, but they were not. On the contrary, the gospels became the basis for ROMAN Catholic (universalist) religion.

So the next question is: Why did the Romans adopt the gospels for the basis of their new state religion?

I have some answers, but I would first like to hear from all of you.
Onias

outhouse

It took Constantine to do that, and its written out clearly. There is no mystery here at all.


Your ignoring 300 years of history.

As far as the copies of copies. We can tell by writing style gospels like Gmark have changed very little from what was first written. Its a short little piece with a writing style unchanged. What additions were aded we know about.


Really there is no mystery here either.

Toto

Under the new rules, you should be providing some authority for this breathtaking assertion.

maryhelena

Onias

That's not where my interest lies. My interest is trying to get as far back as possible re the origins of the gospel story. As I said earlier, what people did with the gospel story once it was in the public domain - is really not here nor there as far as searching for early christian origins. I like to keep focused on the gospel story - not what people did with that story.

outhouse

Maybe we should require you to explain gravity in full, and if you cant we will have to overthrow Newtons laws.


Of Gmarks 661 verses, 600 are repeated in later gospels, thus we know from the end of the first century the gospel of Mark less the ending has remained unchanged.

Matthew was the popular gospel, and ancient traditions looked at Gmark as “abbreviator” of Matthew, thus it was left alone.

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/...977E7D516D04E2

Of the four canonical gospels, Mark seems to have been neglected in Antiquity,


attention was focused on Matthew’s gospel, because another tradition, this one going back to Augustine, claimed that Matthew’s was the first of the four to have been composed. As a consequence, Mark was seen merely as an “abbreviator” of Matthew.


Most of Mark’s gospel may be found in either Matthew or Luke (or both); it is estimated that some six hundred of Mark’s 661 verses are repeated to a greater or lesser extent in these other gospels. Thus, there was little incentive until recent times for readers to consult Mark,

Toto

That assumes without proof that the other gospels were written by the end of the first century. BUT - there is no physical evidence or other indication that the gospels were written before the middle of the second century.

Once again, you are uncritically accepting Christian apologetic arguments that try to push the dates of the gospels back as early as possible. If you keep this up, you will have to stop calling yourself an atheist.

true

This does not follow. We know that there were tendencies to harmonize the gospels. A gospel might have been earlier, but a scribe could still "correct" it in light of later writings.

This is all well known, but it doesn't come close to showing that there were no changes in Mark.

Onias

Mary,
The problem with your view is that we do not have the original MSS of the gospels. We just have the extant versions that may have been so heavily redacted that they may bear little resemblance to the originals. Think of the extant gospels as an omelet or quiche . . . with the original gospel MSS being the scrambled eggs and the added ingredients being the redactions.

To my mind, the original MSS were purely messianic docs written with similar content and style as the War Scroll and other militant anti-Roman DSS. But over time they were redacted by the Romans into a less subversive doc that instead preached pacifism and love for their (Roman) enemies and their tax-collectors, etc. In other words, A doc the Romans could not only accept but promote as their state religion. For spice, add in a generous measure of lampooning of the failed messianic figures generically represented as 'Jesus', a comic and impotent excuse for salvation. . . especially when he 'resurrects' and disappears into heaven rather than to fight the Roman occupiers as his followers expected. If you listen very closely, you can hear the (Roman) gods laughing, along with myself. :funny:
Onias

outhouse

False


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

Because of the historical allusions found in the Gospel of Mark to the events of the First Jewish Revolt, the period of five years between 70 and 75 CE is the most plausible dating for the Gospel of Mark within the broader timeframe indicated of 65 to 80 CE.



You once again are falsely labeling apologetics to all modern scholarships


Nor can you back up your false assumption.



Sure it does

It shows 600 of 661 verses, have remained virtually the same.

outhouse

False

There is plenty of indication. Thats why its almost unanimous among scholars.

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegos...k/a/dating.htm

Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.



The dating of Marks gospels isnt even really in question.

There doesnt have to be physical proof, for unbiased scholars to determine when literature was created.