Ted Hoffman

Rodahi
OTOH, it could be a story about a historical person with some fictional elements added.
I concur. For once we find common ground.

There is historical evidence proving that there were Jewish exorcists before, during, and after the time of Jesus. Superstitious people of that day (and some moderns) believed in the reality of demons. I personally do not think demons exist, but Jesus and his audience certainly did. I don't think the demon cried out, but that the "possessed" man himself spoke. Perhaps the audience became convinced that the demon had left the man when he calmed down.
I can accept the argument that the people were gullible then. But what about the voice? Was Mark gullible or was Mark exaggerating (and maybe lying)? Did he too hear the human voice?

Are you saying that mad people then had strange voices that could be taken for the voices of supernatural or unnatural beings?

The versed DO NOT say that he calmed down. Just that the demon came out, he convulsed and the people were amazed.

Since only Simon and Andrew were the present disciples, why does Mark narrate the story as if he was present himself? Is he being honest?

I think the following translation better depicts the above incident:
Hold on, are you saying I am using a bad translation? Why should I accept your translation as better? Why didnt you insist I use a particular translation? If some are better than others?

Jesus performed a magical act. The skin disease didn't actually disappear, but members of the audience may have been convinced that it did. Jesus sent the victim away.
So you are saying that even though the people witnessed that NO miracle actually took place (ie no wounds disapeared), they still believed that a miracle took place and marvelled?
Is that what you would have us believe?
And what about Mark, are we also supposed to believe that he believed these miracles took place.

This is another example of what Jewish magicians could do. The hand was not actually healed but the audience was convinced that it was.

What convinced the audience that it was? Are you saying the healings were orchestrated?

I don't think anyone can get the wind to follow verbal commands, BUT ancient superstitious people believed that it could be done, especially if they were under the spell of a good magician.
Again you are saying the storm went on raging but Mark chose to write that it actually stopped and there was calm. If this is the kind of person Mark was, why believe him at all?
You are also saying the people were totally impervious to reality and held their beliefs in spite of the contradicting reality that faced them
Why then did the disciples doubt when Jesus told them to throw their nets after they had tried fishing without success?

I don't think the incident actually happened the way Mark suggested.
Me too, in fact there was no such incident 2000 swines?!!!? My God! your Mark has no shame at all!

I do think there are historical elements present, however.
That does not bother me because I know I am reading myth.

Mk. 5:15-17, The Complete Gospels.
...and all about the pigs

Is this more beleivable? Oh God!

Question: Why would a person write an account about a great fictional exorcist AND include the part about people begging him to leave their area?
Mark does NOT say that they begged him to leave, on the contrary he says Jesus got so popular he had to avoid enthusiastic crowds:

Mark 1: 40 says: "But he (the healed leper) went out and began to proclaim it freely and to (41) spread the news around, to such an extent that Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city, but [5] stayed out in unpopulated areas; and (42) they were coming to Him from everywhere."

I think its incorrect for you to seek versions that differ with KJV (which is what I am using. Its insincere to wait for me to make my arguments with a version of my choice, then you seek versions that have information that favours you.

To answer your question, many people in the society today gain a lot from other peoples infirmities and problems. For example, the despotic leaders in third world countries may perpetuate the illiteracy of their subjects in order to maintain their positions. With Jesus, maybe the pharisees and scribes and even other magicians were making a lot of wealth by "healing" the sick. Jesus could have upset their hold on people by healing for free and providing an alternative avenue for help.

This would not mean the story actually took place, just that its not so nonsensical for people to send a way a healer.

Agnos1

It would be interesting if someone on this board could elucidate how historians have determined the extreme likelihood of Socrates' existence and how that compares, using the same methodology, to determining the historocity of Jesus one way or the other. There should be a mountain of evidence or non-evidence for both figures. Thanks

Ag

rodahi

rodahi: There is historical evidence proving that there were Jewish exorcists before, during, and after the time of Jesus. Superstitious people of that day (and some moderns) believed in the reality of demons. I personally do not think demons exist, but Jesus and his audience certainly did. I don't think the demon cried out, but that the "possessed" man himself spoke. Perhaps the audience became convinced that the demon had left the man when he calmed down.

IntenSity: I can accept the argument that the people were gullible then. But what about the voice? Was Mark gullible or was Mark exaggerating (and maybe lying)? Did he too hear the human voice?

I think the writer was as superstitious as the characters depicted in his narrative. I DO NOT think the writer was an eyewitness; however, it is possible the incident was related to him.

IntenSity: Are you saying that mad people then had strange voices that could be taken for the voices of supernatural or unnatural beings?

It happened then and it happens now. People believe that demonic possessions occur. The strange voice emanates from the "victim," not some supernatural force.

IntenSity: The versed DO NOT say that he calmed down. Just that the demon came out, he convulsed and the people were amazed.

See Mark 5:15 for an example of a victim of possession who calmed down after an exorcism.

IntenSity: Since only Simon and Andrew were the present disciples, why does Mark narrate the story as if he was present himself? Is he being honest?

We do not know who was present, but the writer of the story was not. He never uses the pronoun "I" or "we."

rodahi

rodahi: I think the following translation better depicts the above incident:

IntenSity: Hold on, are you saying I am using a bad translation? Why should I accept your translation as better? Why didnt you insist I use a particular translation? If some are better than others?

1. I never said you are using a "bad translation."
2. You DO NOT have to accept the translation I offered. Use whatever translation you think is best.
3. I don't "insist" on anything. I did suggest that you read Mark a few postings back. One of the translations I recommended is The Complete Gospels.
4. Some translations use variants that show Jesus in the best possible light. Some translations use variants that show what the translators think the writer most likely meant to say, even if Jesus comes across as an angry, emotional magician.

rodahi: Jesus performed a magical act. The skin disease didn't actually disappear, but members of the audience may have been convinced that it did. Jesus sent the victim away.

IntenSity: So you are saying that even though the people witnessed that NO miracle actually took place (ie no wounds disapeared), they still believed that a miracle took place and marvelled?
Is that what you would have us believe?

That is precisely what I am saying.

IntenSity: And what about Mark, are we also supposed to believe that he believed these miracles took place.

Yes.

rodahi: This is another example of what Jewish magicians could do. The hand was not actually healed but the audience was convinced that it was.

IntenSity: What convinced the audience that it was? Are you saying the healings were orchestrated?

Good Jewish magicians could convince their audiences of just about anything they chose--IF the audience had trust in the magician's ability.

rodahi: I don't think anyone can get the wind to follow verbal commands, BUT ancient superstitious people believed that it could be done, especially if they were under the spell of a good magician.

IntenSity: Again you are saying the storm went on raging but Mark chose to write that it actually stopped and there was calm. If this is the kind of person Mark was, why believe him at all?

"Then he got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, 'Be quiet, shut up!' The wind then died down and there was a great calm."

I think it was a matter of good timing. Many storms have moments of calm. Superstitious people remember ONLY the times when magic worked.


IntenSity: You are also saying the people were totally impervious to reality and held their beliefs in spite of the contradicting reality that faced them.

What makes you think that ancient, superstitious people held the same view of "reality" that you and I do?

IntenSity: Why then did the disciples doubt when Jesus told them to throw their nets after they had tried fishing without success?

Jesus was not always successful with his magic.

Vorkosigan

Ag, this is a topic for another thread. I'll repost it for you.....

rodahi

rodahi: I don't think the incident actually happened the way Mark suggested.

IntenSity: Me too, in fact there was no such incident 2000 swines?!!!? My God! your Mark has no shame at all!

1. We don't know for sure if the story uses elements from a historical event in the life of Jesus. I don't know and you don't know.
2. The writer is anonymous. The name "Mark" is used only for convention. Further, he is NOT my Mark.


rodahi: I do think there are historical elements present, however.

IntenSity: That does not bother me because I know I am reading myth.

My comments are not intended to "bother" you. They merely reflect my views. You do NOT know you are "reading myth" and your dogmatic assertions prove nothing. I wonder why you continue to make them

IntenSity: Mk. 5:15-17, The Complete Gospels.
...and all about the pigs

Is this more beleivable? Oh God!

You left out a portion of my commentary and quotes. Why?

rodahi: Question: Why would a person write an account about a great fictional exorcist AND include the part about people begging him to leave their area?

IntenSity: Mark does NOT say that they begged him to leave...

I will repeat the actual quote and let the readers decide for themselves:

"And they [the townspeople] went out to see what happened. And they come to Jesus and notice the demoniac sitting with his clothes on and with his wits about him, the one who had harbored Legion, and they got scared. And those who had seen told them what had happened to the demoniac, and all about the pigs. And they started begging him to go away from their region."


IntenSity: ...on the contrary he says Jesus got so popular he had to avoid enthusiastic crowds:

Mark 1: 40 says: "But he (the healed leper) went out and began to proclaim it freely and to (41) spread the news around, to such an extent that Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city, but [5] stayed out in unpopulated areas; and (42) they were coming to Him from everywhere."

This is a totally different incident. I hope you understand that.

Ted Hoffman

Rodahi,
Let me summarise what you have told me so far:

• Whoever wrote Mark was a very superstitious person
• Although Mark was NOT an eyewitness, its possible the incident of the madman who got cured was related to him.
• Strange voices emanate from insane people
• Mad people calm down after exorcism
• The people believed that wounds disappeared even when they could see clearly that the wounds of lepers had not disappeared
• Jesus was a magigian (or performed magical acts). Jesus was therefore a deceiver since magicians deceive.
• Jesus calmed the storm because of good timing ie he waited and when the storm was just about to stop, he commanded it to stop.
• Jesus was not always successful with magic ( examples? the guy that got exorcised then died?)
• 2000 swines could have been sent to the body of water because the story uses elements from a historical event (which historical event?)

Are you serious?

rodahi

Are you going to respond to my last posting? You seem more intent on game playing.

Agnos1

Rodahi, hi. I wish to interject that I believe Intensity has summarized fairly well the "implications" of your last few posts, and that he should not be put on the defensive to justify the unlikelihood of Jesus' existence.

It is up to YOU to define why there is a kernel of truth behind the claim of historocity when any rational skeptic SHOULD rightly question a story that's based on more than a few previous fictions, ADMITTED fictions at that. What part of Jesus' life is real and which part is false, then? It won't do to say that because myth contains imperfect characters, that this somehow adds to their veracity. On the contrary, it actually adds human "character" to otherwise less than entertaining heroes, and mythology abounds with this imperfection for that reason.

I would suggest that YOU provide an alternate summary if you don't want to address Intensity's latest post, otherwise I wouldn't mind you answering his summary point by point, with your clarifications and objections.

Agnos1

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Agnos1 ]</p>

rodahi

Thanks for your opinion. You have it backwards, IntenSity has dogmatically asserted on several occasions that Jesus is a fictional character. It is he who must support his claim. I have merely stated that Jesus may or may not have existed and pointed out reasons why his existence is taken for granted by virtually all who have looked at both sides of this issue.

I have NEVER said that skeptics should not question Jesus historicity. Read all of my posts before you jump to conclusions.