aa5874

What you fail to understand is that Myth characters were presented as literal, earthy, terra-firma events in antiquity--just like Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Remus and Romulus.

See Genesis and Plutarch's Romulus--the death of the Myths Adam, Abel, Remus and Romulus happened on earth in the Myth Fables of the Jews and Romans

EarlDoherty

Because one group falls into category A, therefore all groups fall into category A? There is no category B, no such thing as allegory, or stories interpreted as allegory by some people, in the ancient world? I'm sure there's a proper name for that kind of fallacy, especially when a close study of one particular group indicates that it could well fall into that different category.

This is your basic problem, aa. Your ideas have been set in concrete with not the slightest bit of wiggle room. And why the only recourse is to ignore you.

Earl Doherty

Sheshbazzar

Better to be securely anchored in concrete, than to be sunk up to your eyebrows in horse shit Earl.



Sheshbazzar

jdboy

Well i think that the writers knew and understood allegory but the uneducated believed that this story happened on planet earth sometime in time.

Isn't that what you are saying?

EarlDoherty

I’ve seen your chart, maryhelena. It is not compelling. By way of analogy, both the kingdom-preaching community represented in Q and the Pauline Christ cult believed that the apocalyptic end of the world was imminent, with some figure arriving from heaven to judge. They both had preaching apostles. They both appealed to the Jewish scriptures. Does that mean one is derived from or dependent on the other? Hardly, and in fact we can tell that the two movements were quite independent. Commonalities can be found all over the place in many areas of thought, even commonalities between sectarian features and standard Jewish history. It does not mean that because Antigonus was crucified and the Markan Jesus was crucified that the latter is meant to reflect the former. You need more than that, but no one seems to be able to convince you of it.

And rather than criticize the “assumption” in my eye, be aware of the even less founded assumptions in your own.

It doesn’t work that way, mh. You are demanding that I “prove a negative.” What you don’t seem to understand is that one does not advocate something in the absence of evidence or reasonable postulation. Your insistence on a link between the Markan Jesus and Antigonus has been offered without any compelling evidence, your alleged parallels notwithstanding. That absence of evidence is a good basis on which to reject your contention. Otherwise, you could maintain that I could not reject any contention on any grounds whatever, because I could not “prove” that such a connection was non-existent or irrelevant.

I don’t have to “prove” that the Egyptian pyramid builders were not inspired by the blueprints supplied by visiting aliens. In the same way, I don’t have to “prove” that Antigonus was irrelevant to Mark. I simply have to demonstrate that you have nothing substantial to justify your claim. And you certainly haven’t disproven the evidence which I present to justify my own interpretation of the Pauline cult. The “forward movement” in regard to Paul is being “stalled” not by me, but by people who refuse to see that evidence within the texts themselves, taking into account contemporary philosophy and religious expression.

Earl Doherty

outhouse

A lot would depend on when a possible interpolation occured. We know anti semitism was happening as early as Gmark dated roughly 70 CE just a few decads after Paul. Then was it all interpolated or just that the Jews were guilty?

Early or late, either way these authors/redactors definately believed in a earthly Jesus figure.


The arguements for authenticity are strong as well.

EarlDoherty

Yes, that is exactly what happened some time after Mark wrote his story. I also maintain that it is quite possible that Mark believed he was writing an allegory about a figure (the imagined Q founder Jesus) who had existed. But he knew he was not creating an actual historical account of what he had done, because his story was put together out of scripture, pure and simple, and there is no precedent anywhere prior to Mark for a Passion story about a crucifixion that took place on earth under Pilate. Paul and the epistles present no such thing, and certainly the Q tradition is entirely lacking anything like it. So it is reasonable to suppose that Mark made it up himself, possibly/probably inspired by contact with the Pauline heavenly Christ myth we find in the epistles. (Here was a case of syncretism at work, and it doesn't require Markan direct use of any of those epistles.)

That latter contention is certainly more reasonable than that Mark was superimposing some kind of 'record' of what happened to a long-dead Jewish king onto a representation of the kingdom-preaching sect (as found in Q) that Mark was a part of. What in heaven's name would Antigonus have had to do with that sect in Mark's mind and why would he make such a link? And why would others so readily respond to it? Matthew and Luke come from different communities. Why would they too have followed Mark's lead and been building on some obscure link between Antigonus and their Q traditions? Why would anyone see Antigonus as the Son of God and savior of mankind? Maryhelena's theory simply doesn't compute.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

Earl, there is no 'evidence' within the texts. The texts do not reflect historical realities. The NT story is just that - a story. A story about early christian origins. The text cannot be used to establish what that early christian history was. The texts are, themselves, an interpretation, a prophetic and theological interpretation of what that early christian history was. Interpreting the story does not get one to the source of that story. It does not get one to the ground zero for early christian origins. For that, Hasmonean/Jewish history has to be put on the table.

All one gets from interpreting the NT story is simply another interpretation, a second hand interpretation, of what that early christian history was. i.e. an interpretation leads to assumption upon assumption. A never ending merry-go-around of competing ahistoricist/mythicist theories. And all the NT scholars have to do is let the ahistoricists/mythicists lambaste one another.
And, Earl, this will be the situation until such time as interpretations of that NT story are set aside for an historical approach.

And no, Earl, you don't have the answers - your particular band-wagon is incapable of supporting an historical load.

EarlDoherty

This is a counter-argument?

One man's horse-shit is another man's fertilizer for his case.

Earl Doherty

jdboy

For historical we only have to look at the activities of the Romans and Josephus's writings.
The NT is just a fiction to show how that Event was brought to the Christian nations

"The reign of Augustus is distinguished by the most extraordinary event recorded in history, either sacred or profane, the nativity of the Saviour of mankind; which has since introduced a new epoch into the chronology of all Christian nations. The commencement of the new aera being the most flourishing period of the Roman empire, a general view of the state of knowledge and taste at this period, may here not be improper.
Suetonius (2012-12-04). Complete Works of Suetonius (Illustrated) (Delphi Ancient Classics) (Kindle Locations 2733-2735). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.