| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Did Jesus Exist? |
| Yes |
|
9% |
[ 6 ] |
| No |
|
31% |
[ 20 ] |
| He Probably Existed |
|
12% |
[ 8 ] |
| I Doubt It |
|
33% |
[ 21 ] |
| I Don't Know |
|
12% |
[ 8 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 63 |
|
| Author |
Message |
wandering soul
Forum Plebian
Joined: 16 May 2007
Posts: 147
Local time: 3:26 PM
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:38 am Post subject: Did Jesus Exist? |
  |
|
Did Jesus exist?
I haven't read enough on the topic to be very certain, but what I have read makes me doubt it. And the gospel accounts of his life are legends rather than historical fact.
James
_________________
The Happy Heretic |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
baddogma
optimal pooper
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 17649
Local time: 5:26 AM
Location: South Dakota
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jesus was like Bob is today..there were MANY. But the biblical one. GTFO! lol
_________________
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
The wise say it out loud. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickcopeland648
The Phantom Teabagger
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 4138
Local time: 8:26 PM
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| baddogma wrote: | | Jesus was like Bob is today..there were MANY. But the biblical one. GTFO! lol |
There might be many Bob's, but there is only one true "Bob".
"The 'Bob' that can be described is not the true 'Bob'"
-- The Tao Te Dobbs
_________________
"It was then I understood my mission. I knew I must overthrow the white man and all he stood for. But that would not be easy. I would need the help from my organizing brothers and sisters. But most of all, I'd need the help of Allah. All thanks be to Allah, praise be his sweet and blessed name."
-- From "Dreams From my Father: The Unexpurgated Version THEY don't Want You To Read". By B. Obama Hussein, Forward By Jerome Corsi"
"Syphilis is the algebra of infection." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonyman1989
Forum Master
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 2567
Local time: 4:26 PM
Location: I was hoping you could tell me.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no I don't think so the first mention of him was 30 years after his "death"
_________________
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein
"For then we will know the mind of God." Stephen Hawking
"We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes." Richard Dawkins |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yellow_Number_Five
Forum Master
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 10036
Local time: 4:26 PM
Location: The 5% Nation
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There may have been an itinerent preacher named Yeshua around that time, in fact, there were probably many.
The man in the Bible certainly is a fiction though. I don't care how one argues for textual validity, it won't make the actual stories any more plausible.
_________________
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
If you love God, burn a church! - Jello Biafra
When I hear of Schr?dinger's cat, I reach for my gun. - Stephen Hawking
Fear is just another word for ignorance. - Hunter S. Thompson
.jpg) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newkid00
Intern
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 74
Local time: 3:26 PM
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe. Maybe there was someone like Jesus and it got taken out of hand and presto you got the divine Jesus of today.
_________________
Proud Atheist and believer of evolution
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
"Sixty-eight percent of Republicans don't believe in evolution, but only five percent of monkeys believe in Republicans."- Stephen Colbert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nimitz
Guest
Local time: 6:26 AM
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Todangst and Rook Hawkins have posted articles that should be required reading for all you heathens, and non heathens alike over at the RRS.
A Silence That Screams - (No contemporary historical accounts for "jesus)
Todangst
A Thorough Examination of the Evidence for Jesus
Rook_Hawkins
This'll keep yer lips moving all evening!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
monty
Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 932
Local time: 2:26 PM
Location: Lakeville MN
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the best answer to "Was there a Jesus?" is to go research the "Cargo Cults" of the south pacific.
If you can literally see a story become legend and then religion within ~60 years you can easily see how no story that old can be trusted without extraordinary documentary and physical evidence.
_________________
The constitution does not guarantee the right to own guns for sporting events. It guarantees it for the right to overthrow an oppresive government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonyman1989
Forum Master
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 2567
Local time: 4:26 PM
Location: I was hoping you could tell me.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
doesn't luke and mark give different accounts of who he was?
_________________
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein
"For then we will know the mind of God." Stephen Hawking
"We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes." Richard Dawkins |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wandering soul
Forum Plebian
Joined: 16 May 2007
Posts: 147
Local time: 3:26 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm thinking the Jesus in the Bible MAY have been based on a real person or perhaps several people....kind of like Merlin.
James
_________________
The Happy Heretic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmisho
Stochastic
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 5406
Local time: 6:26 AM
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wandering soul wrote: | I'm thinking the Jesus in the Bible MAY have been based on a real person or perhaps several people....kind of like Merlin.
James |
This is what I think. The people of which Jesus is an agglomeration need not have lived in similar times either, maybe hundreds of years apart.
I would say Jesus is totally fictional, like Zeus etc, except that charismatic cults begin with one central figure. When this central figure died, he was deified in a not-unusual fashion.
So I think Jesus was based on several people, but there was one main one informing the legend of Jesus...who was not crucified, who was probably married and had kids, who was most definitely not from a virgin birth and who may or may not have been named "Jesus".
_________________
K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
"Never is a long time." Robert Fripp, 1998
Poetry, Art, Music |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FlatEarth1024
Rogue Admin, mad with power!
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 5946
Local time: 8:26 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Plus, let's not forget...even if there was an actual flesh and blood Jesus of the bible, it means very little. Remember, this was 2000 years ago. The rains, seasonal harvest, illness, and good fortune were all "brought forth" by this god or that. It would take very little to look messianic to the simplistic patterns of thought most people possessed then.
If Criss Angel were to time travel back and land on earth 10 years before Jesus, I'm sure he would be looked at as a supernatural being...see how he miraculously levitates before us? See how he disappears before our eyes, leaving only his empty cloak? Surely this man is blessed.
If Criss Angel were 10 years older than Jesus, by the time Jesus was walking on water, people would be like "Pfft, is that all you got? That other guy levitated between two buildings and escaped the Fishtank of Death!"
_________________
Complaint, breech of rules? PM A MOD
Need help? Have a question? CONTACT A MOD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baddogma
optimal pooper
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 17649
Local time: 5:26 AM
Location: South Dakota
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe Jesus had a twin brother and that was who showed up after the tree incident in Acts.
I wonder if that is how they do it in Vegas too.....
_________________
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
The wise say it out loud. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
todangst
A saganist
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Posts: 19652
Local time: 8:26 PM
Location: Rutherford, NJ
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tonyman1989 wrote: | | doesn't luke and mark give different accounts of who he was? |
The book of Mark is midrash
So it's not an actual account of anything.
Luke borrows from Mark and from Josephus, which is fatal for Luke being an actual account of anything either.
I see someone already linked my brief essay on the total silence of contemporaries on "Jesus" so I'll just post the info concerning the book of 'Mark' being Midrash:
There are very good reasons to question the claim that the Gospels of the New Testament are, or rely upon, actual eyewitness accounts.
First, we need consider that all of the Gospels appear to owe their existence to the first "Gospel", the book of "Mark"
All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark. That Matthew and Luke are reworkings of Mark with extra, mostly teaching, material added is now an almost universal scholarly conclusion, while many also consider that John has drawn his framework for Jesus’ ministry and death from a Synoptic source as well. We thus have a Christian movement spanning half the empire and a full century which nevertheless has managed to produce only one version of the events that are supposed to lie at its inception. Acts, as an historical witness to Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian movement, cannot be relied upon, since it is a tendentious creation of the second century, dependent on the Gospels and designed to create a picture of Christian origins traceable to a unified body of apostles in Jerusalem who were followers of an historical Jesus. Many scholars now admit that much of Acts is sheer fabrication.
- Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle.
So, we do not have 'four' accounts, we have one.
Next, we must recognize that the book of "Mark" as well as all the other "Gospel" accounts, are anonymous:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_anonymous_works_and_none_are_eyewitness_accounts
As Thomas Paine first noted in "The Age of Reason", the value of testimony is based on the credibility of the witness. An anonymous witness, therefore, is of questionable value at best.
Then we must consider that there are no contemporary historical confirmations of the Gospels:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus
Finally, historical and literary analysis provides a good grounds for holding that the book of "Mark" is 'Midrash', i.e. a set of stories that follow the rely on the Jewish practice of drawing on scriptural themes and passages to create new stories and homilies.
Not only do the Gospels contain basic and irreconcilable differences in their accounts of Jesus, they have been put together according to a traditional Jewish practice known as "midrash", which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings. Thus, Mark’s Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses. Many details were fashioned out of specific passages in scripture. The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms, Isaiah and other prophets, and as a whole it retells a common tale found throughout ancient Jewish writings, that of the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model. Liberal scholars now regard the Gospels as "faith documents" and not accurate historical accounts.
- Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle
Michael A. Turton's Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, does a wonderful job of demonstrating that "Mark" is 'Midrash' and therefore not history.
His site was formerly located here:
http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html
I believe it was taken down so that he could present the work as a published book. The site can still be found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060427175532/users2.ev1.net/~turton/GMark/GMark_index.html)
Michael Turton writes:
If Mark is history, where are the reliable methods for uncovering it? If Mark knew real traditions, why would be bother to parallel some other story every time Jesus does something major? It's not like this is a sometime thing. Almost every story in Mark draws on the OT, and Mark often tells you where he got it from one way or another (and if he doesn't, that fussbudget Matthew certainly will). The few stories that are not OT in origin have a narrative function, and of course, are so totally bound up with the supernatural that they are certainly fiction -- sometimes both (as in the Gerasene Demoniac, for example, though that has OT echoes too).
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=d239f8ccf586656ab7cdeadddb5bb815&t=132440&page=2
Note: Turton's work also serves a secondary role: it serves to invalidate any argument that Gospel 'prophecies' are supportive of the Gospel's divine origin. It shows that such a claim is based on backwards logic: The Mark author isn't capturing a series of events that 'fulfills a prophecy, he's writing a story built upon Old Testament passages! Seeing as this provides us with a more parsimonious explanation for the purported prophecies of the Old Testament, the claim for Midrash follows the basic rules of valid historiography, whereas 'prophecy claims' violate them.
*************************************************
Because the later Gospels all clearly rely on Mark to some degree (Matthew and Luke are even considered "synoptic', 'similar eyed'/same view,) demonstrating that 'Mark' is a work of fiction unseats the validity of all the supposed "Gospel' accounts. Yet we need not rely on this 'cascade' problem alone. An examination of the other "Gospels' reveals that each "Gospel' claim falls short of "Gospel Truth".
Robert Price's deconstruction of the gospels helps to invalidate the concept of a 'historical jesus'.
THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN
How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?
by Robert M. Price, Prometheus Books, 2003
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/BkrvSonofMan.htm
Price is one of the sources that Turton draws upon. This review of his work demonstrates just how poor the case is for a 'historical jesus'.
From the site:
" It is clear from this that a concern for historical accuracy played no part in the creation of the Gospels. The principle of eyewitness, perhaps even of representing history at all, was simply not operating. This is a chain of original storytelling, not a reproduction or editing of earlier tradition. Literary criticism reveals Mark as writing most of his Gospel out of his own imagination (drawing mostly on scriptural elements), while his redactors are recasting his efforts for their own purposes, with no concerns about compromising or falsifying historical truth or accuracy. That there was vast fabrication by all involved throughout the Christian documentary record has long been undeniable, and there is no reason to make any distinction in reliability between canonical and non-canonical writings."
Richard Carrier is another source that Michael Turton relies upon. Carrier's work goes far to weaken the claim for an historical jesus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html
This work helps demonstrate how much Luke relied on Josephus.
From the page:
Luke and Josephus (2000)
Richard Carrier
There has long been the observation that Luke-Acts contains numerous parallels with the works of Josephus, generating three different theories to account for this: that Josephus used Luke, that Luke used Josephus, or that they both used some common but now lost source. Steve Mason has reviewed the arguments [1] and in summarizing the evidence concludes that, besides generic parallels of genre and form and the use of identical historical events, which are inconclusive as proofs, the "coincidence ... of aim, themes, and vocabulary ... seems to suggest that Luke-Acts is building its case on the foundation of Josephus' defense of Judaism," and therefore that Luke is consciously and significantly drawing on Josephus to supplement his use of Mark and Q and to create the appearance of a real history, a notable deviation from all the other Gospels which have none of the features of a historical work.
Carrier's work can be found here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/
Finally, one ought to consider looking at the works of Josephus himself:
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/JOSEPHUS.HTM
Josephus writes a history of the Jewish people.. one would expect that if he really had information about jesus, that jesus would dominate his telling of their history. Yet while we do hear glowing reports of John the Baptist, nothing in the works of Josephus speak of any Jesus, the Christ.
More on Micahel Turton
(Vorkosigan)
Turton writes:
First, we'll see how much of Mark is based on the OT. The "OT Frame" represents a significant event parallel between the OT and Mark, "(OT parallels)" represents a significant number of verses with parallels in the OT.
Pericope...OT Frame (verse origin)
1:1-8..........NONE KNOWN (OT parallels)
1:9-11........(OT Parallels)
1:12-13......1 Kings 19, The Fall
1:14-20......1 Kings 19:19-21 (Galilee Isa (9:1)
1:21-28......(many OT/Jewish lit echoes)
1:29-39......NONE KNOWN
1:40-45......2 Kings 5, Nm 5:1-2
2:1-12........2 Kings 1:2-17
2:13-17......1 Kings 19:19-21
2:18-22......CHREIA SAYING
2:23-28......(v25=2 Sam 15-16)
3:1-6..........1 Kings 13:4-6
3:7-12........Invention
3:13-19......Exodus 18:2-26
3:20-30......(Zech 3:13), Exodus 18:2-26
3:31-35......CHREIA SAYING, Exodus 18:2-26
4:1-20........(many to OT/Hellenistic culture)
4:21-25......SAYING (OT/Jewish parallels)
4:26-29......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:30-34......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:35-41......Jonah through Psalm 107
5:1-20........(Isa 65:1-7)
5:21-43.....2 Kings 4:8-37
6:1-6..........CHREIA SAYING
6:7-13........MISSION CHARGE (CYNIC)
6:14-29......Esther
6:30-44......2 Kings 4:38-44
6:45-56......(Psalm 77, Isa 43, Job 9)
7:1-23........(many OT, anachronism)
7:24-30......Elijah-Elisha echoes, CHREIA SAYING
7:31-37......Isa 35:5-6
8:1-13........2 Kings 4:38-44
8:14-21......Non-Markan
8:22-26......Interpolation based on 7:31-7
8:27-33......Invention (Peter's Confession)
8:34-38......Hellenistic Philosophical Concepts
9:1-13........2 Kings 1, other OT
9:14-29......NONE KNOWN
9:30-37......Invention (2nd passion prediction
9:38-41......Num 11:26-29
9:42-50......(Isa, Num, Lev)
10:1-12......OT, CHREIA (Paul on Divorce)
10:13-16....CHREIA
10:17-31[color=white]....[/colorCHREIA
10:32-34....Invention (3rd passion prediction)
10:35-45....Invention/anachronism (OT parallels)
10:46-52....Plato? NONE KNOWN
11:1-11......2 Kings 9:13, 1 Samuel 9 & 10 (OT parallels)
11:12-14....(Jeremiah 8, 29, Joel 1, Hosea 9)
11:15-19....2 Kings (OT parallels)
11:20-25....Invention -- 2nd fig tree
11:27-33....Baptism authority? SAYING
12:1-12......PARABLE, 2 Kings 9:22-10:27 (OT parallels)
12:13-17....CHREIA (Paul?)
12:18-27....CHREIA (OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
12:28-34....(OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
12:35-44....2 Kings 12:5-17
13:1-31......2 Kings 10:26-28, anachronisms, (OT parallels)
13:32-37....PARABLE
14:1-11......2 Kings 9:1-13 (OT parallels)
14:12-25....1 Samuel 10:1-7 (Paul?)
14:26-31....(OT parallels)
14:32-42....1 Kings 19:1-5 (Psalm 78:39-41)
14:43-52....2 Samuel 15-16
14:53-65....Invention (OT parallels)
14:66-72....NONE KNOWN (Peter's denial= invention)
15:1-15......Daniel 6 (Josephus War?)
15:16-20....(OT parallels, Roman procession)
15:21-32....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:33-41....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:42-47....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
16:1-8........Daniel 6, 2 Kgs 13: 20-1 (OT parallels)
Let's now group them:
DIRECT OT PARALLELING:
1:12-13......1 Kings 19, The Fall
1:14-20......1 Kings 19:19-21 (Galilee Isa (9:1)
1:40-45......2 Kings 5, Nm 5:1-2
2:1-12........2 Kings 1:2-17
2:13-17......1 Kings 19:19-21
3:1-6..........1 Kings 13:4-6
3:13-19......Exodus 18:2-26
3:20-30......(Zech 3:13), Exodus 18:2-26
3:31-35......CHREIA SAYING, Exodus 18:2-26
4:35-41......Jonah through Psalm 107
5:21-43.....2 Kings 4:8-37, Num 5:1-2
6:14-29......Esther
6:30-44......2 Kings 4:38-44
6:45-56......(Psalm 77, Isa 43, Job 9)
7:31-37......Isa 35:5-6
8:1-13........2 Kings 4:38-44
9:1-13........2 Kings 1, other OT
9:38-41......Num 11:26-29
11:1-11......2 Kings 9:13, 1 Samuel 9 & 10 (OT parallels)
11:12-14....(OT: Jeremiah 8, 29, Joel 1, Hosea 9)
11:15-19....2 Kings (OT parallels)
12:1-12......PARABLE, 2 Kings 9:22-10:27 (OT parallels)
12:35-44....2 Kings 12:5-17
13:1-31......2 Kings 10:26-28, anachronisms, (OT parallels)
14:1-11......2 Kings 9:1-13 (OT parallels)
14:12-25....1 Samuel 10:1-7 (Paul?)
14:32-42....1 Kings 19:1-5 (Psalm 78:39-41)
14:43-52....2 Samuel 15-16
15:1-15......Daniel 6 (Josephus War?)
15:21-32....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:33-41....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:42-47....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
16:1-8........Daniel 6, 2 Kgs 13: 20-1 (OT parallels)
------------------
DIRECT PARALLELS 33/71
OT VERSE CONSTRUCTION (built out of individual Verses)
1:9-11........(OT Parallels)
1:21-28......(many OT echoes) also 1 Enoch, Tobit
9:42-50......(Isa, Num, Lev)
12:28-34....(OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
14:26-31....(OT parallels)
15:16-20....(OT parallels, Roman procession)
14:53-65....Invention (OT parallels)
6:7-13........MISSION CHARGE (CYNIC) (OT parallels)
4:1-20........PARABLE (many to OT/Hellenistic culture)
4:21-25......SAYING (OT/Jewish parallels)
4:26-29......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:30-34......SAYING (OT parallels)
------------------
plus 12 = 45/71 or 63.3%
CHREIA
2:18-22......CHREIA SAYING
2:23-28......CHREIA (OT parallels)
6:1-6..........CHREIA SAYING
7:24-30......Elijah-Elisha echoes, CHREIA SAYING
10:1-12......OT, CHREIA (Paul on Divorce)
10:13-16....CHREIA
10:17-31....CHREIA
12:13-17....CHREIA (Paul?)
12:18-27....CHREIA (OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
-------------------
9/71
OUTRIGHT INVENTION
3:7-12........Invention
7:1-23........(many OT, anachronism)
8:27-33......Invention (Peter's Confession)
9:30-37......Invention (2nd passion prediction
10:32-34....Invention (3rd passion prediction)
10:35-45....Invention/anachronism (OT parallels)
11:20-25....Invention -- 2nd fig tree
13:32-37....PARABLE
14:66-72....NONE KNOWN (Peter's denial= invention)
----------------
8/71
UNKNOWN or SOURCE NOT OT
9:14-29......NONE KNOWN
10:46-52....Plato? NONE KNOWN
5:1-20........Josephus? (OT Parallels=Isa 65:1-7)
8:34-38......Hellenistic Philosophical Concepts
8:22-26......Interpolation based on 7:31-7
8:14-21......NONE KNOWN Non-Markan
11:27-33....Baptism authority? SAYING
1:1-8..........NONE KNOWN (OT parallels)
1:29-39......NONE KNOWN
-------------------
9/71 = 13.8%
Well, about 65% of Markan pericopes are built off of the OT one way or another, sometimes by direct paralleling of events, sometimes by verse inspiration. The rest is either Chreia from the culture or hand of Mark, or obvious invention. Some things are difficult to classify, of course....
Mark is fiction. If there was really a community spurring Mark to write this, where are the traditions? There is nothing in Mark that does not go back to the OT, Paul, or something Hellenistic. Exegetes are found of arguing that Matthew cannot be a disciple, else why would have copied Mark? That is just as true of Mark: if he knew stories about the HJ, why did he bother to parallel the OT?
Vorkosigan
The original chatboard post site:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=122535
On chiasms or pericopes
http://www.textexcavation.com/turtonchiasms.html
_________________
Hitler burned people like Anne Frank for being Jewish. For that, we call him evil.
God burns Anne Frank for being Jewish, forever. For that, christians call him "good"
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonyman1989
Forum Master
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 2567
Local time: 4:26 PM
Location: I was hoping you could tell me.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
thanks todangst
_________________
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein
"For then we will know the mind of God." Stephen Hawking
"We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes." Richard Dawkins |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
