Thank you for quoting a religious shitwit like Van Voorst.

Quote:Robert E. Van Voorst (born 5 June 1952) is a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, in Holland, Michigan, and has published scholarly works in early Christian writings and New Testament Greek. He received his B.A. in Religion from Hope College in Holland, Michigan, his M.Div. from Western Theological Seminary, and his Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He has served at Lycoming College (Methodist) in Williamsport, PA, and was a visiting professor at Westminster College, Oxford, England.

If it is all the same to you, I'll place a little more credence in secular historians, epigraphers, and archaeologists rather than these pious frauds who sit around telling each other how fucking holy they are.

(December 12, 2012 at 1:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote: If it is all the same to you, I'll place a little more credence in secular historians, epigraphers, and archaeologists rather than these pious frauds who sit around telling each other how fucking holy they are.

Uh, your last reference was to the Gnostic Society.

I like heretics.

Far more impressive than people who believe in bullshit.

(December 12, 2012 at 1:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote: If it is all the same to you, I'll place a little more credence in secular historians, epigraphers, and archaeologists rather than these pious frauds who sit around telling each other how fucking holy they are.

(December 12, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I like heretics.

Far more impressive than people who believe in bullshit.

The issue here is you've gone from one to the other.

So who exactly is the "consensus" of yours between? The gnostics? Real impressive mate.

(December 7, 2012 at 10:44 pm)Jesus.of.Nazareth Wrote: Below I have summarized my evidence that there was an earlier version of the Gospel of Mark that has been dubbed, "gMark."....

Using existing evidence and theories isnt exactly coming up with something you can claim as your own. Aristotle? Dominic Crossan? Wikipedia?

That Jesus fits into an identifiable existing narrative category recognized by humans isnt a problem.

Tragic hero.
Divine Being.
Messiah.
Prophet.
Sacrificial Lamb.
Logos.
Mythos.
(All of the above?)

There WOULD be a problem - a bigger problem - if He didnt fit into one or more of these. And that problem would be called "the insignificance of Jesus".
Because they dont have an archetype for mediocre, average, anonymous dude who nobody remembers or cares about.

Anyway, I'd like to start with your assertion that;

... the narrative flow seems to be interrupted by some material, after which the narrative appears to be resumed.

You base this in part on a supposed untimely ''insertion'' of the story of John the Baptizer's death.

But that doesnt interrupt the narrative.

Please count the number of references to John the Baptist in the story leading up to this shocking disruption to our attention.

Mark 1:4 And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins…

Mark 1:6 John wore clothing made of camel’s hair…

Mark 1:9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan…

Mark 1:14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee…

Mark 2:18 Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus…

Mark 3:34 Whoever does God’s will (like John the Baptist) is my brother and sister and mother.

Mark 4:21 Don’t hide your lamp under a bowl. Speak up. (Like John the Baptist)

Mark 6:4 Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor... (theres that word again - prophet.)

And where is the prophet John the Baptist?

Remember, John is EXACTLY like ''one of the prophets of long ago'' which Mark 6:15 speaks about, and he is in prison. His absence isn’t a narrative mystery.

....then comes Mark 6:14

King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him....

And why does that matter to the narrative flow?

Because Mark and other Gospel sources were intimately aware of the peoples concern for the jailed John the Baptist and its gruesome ending.

''Are you the Messiah we've been expecting, or should we keep looking for someone else...''

In fact Mark 6:30 speaks of many people coming and going (and by undesigned coincidence, other Gospels explain why - Passover) so the scandal about Herod and John the Baptist would have been the talk of the town.

It would be odd if Mark DIDNT mention this incident after so many references to John and the Prophets of Old.



Welcome to the forum.

(December 13, 2012 at 6:57 am)Aractus Wrote:

(December 12, 2012 at 1:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote: If it is all the same to you, I'll place a little more credence in secular historians, epigraphers, and archaeologists rather than these pious frauds who sit around telling each other how fucking holy they are.

(December 12, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I like heretics.

Far more impressive than people who believe in bullshit.

The issue here is you've gone from one to the other.

So who exactly is the "consensus" of yours between? The gnostics? Real impressive mate.

I suggest you read Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" You have a lot to learn about the gnostics.

Yes, they were just as fucked up as the proto-orthodox but so much of your bullshit was forced on the church by trying to counteract gnostic or other heretical groups.