Interpreting Mark 15:34--'eloi 'eloi lama sabachthani

[Cinjin]

I am trained to advance knowledge of the biblical writings. It's my profession.

Qualify this statement or don't make it again. What training? From what academic institution? For what duration was this training? Is this profession your sole income or some kind of hobby? Do you have a doctorate? Who issued you the degree? If you truly support yourself with this occupation, what is the name of the business where you practice this profession?

I ask these questions because whenever a theist says they "have been educated/trained" in the doctrines of the Bible, it usually means that they've attended a lot of Sunday School courses and have received a lot of brainwashing by another uneducated dipshit who calls himself an evangelist ... or better yet, a youth pastor.

So yes, you've raised a bit of a red flag and I would like you to offer us some evidence.

[Minimalist]

Be fair, Cinj, so far all Barre is doing is touching on the historical-critical method which, as Bart Ehrman notes in Misquoting Jesus is commonplace even in seminaries.

The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and
now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the “historical critical”
method. It is completely different from the “devotional” approach to the Bible one learns in church. The devotional approach to the Bible is concerned about what the Bible has to say—especially what it has to say to me personally or to my society. What does the Bible tell me about God? Christ? The church? My relation to the world? What does it tell me about what to believe? About how to act? About social responsibilities? How can the Bible help make me closer to God? How does it help me to live?

The historical-critical approach has a different set of concerns and therefore poses a different set of questions. At the heart of this approach
is the historical question (hence its name) of what the biblical writings meant in their original historical context. Who were the
actual authors of the Bible? Is it possible (yes!) that some of the authors of some of the biblical books were not in fact who they claimed,
or were claimed, to be—say, that 1 Timothy was not actually written by Paul, or that Genesis was not written by Moses? When did
these authors live? What were the circumstances under which they wrote? What issues were they trying to address in their own day?
How were they affected by the cultural and historical assumptions of their time? What sources did these authors use? When were these
sources produced? Is it possible that the perspectives of these sources differed from one another? Is it possible that the authors who used
these sources had different perspectives, both from their sources and from one another? Is it possible that the books of the Bible, based on
a variety of sources, have internal contradictions? That there are irreconcilable differences among them? And is it possible that what the
books originally meant in their original context is not what they are taken to mean today? That our interpretations of Scripture involve
taking its words out of context and thereby distorting its message?

This is a fairly solid basis for scholarship. Fundies prefer the "devotional" approach which he outlined above. I don't see that from Barre, at all.

[dtango]

Mythology, fiction and legend are not necessarily mutually exclusive. George Washington certainly existed, as you say; however, while you can point to events in his life that are popularly believed yet historically fictional, there are many more events in his life that are historically true. Whatever else people think they know of the man, he left his mark on history - he lived, he loved, he made decisions good and bad that impacted on the lives of others. He probably also wrote things down, letters, bills and somesuch that have been preserved for posterity (I'm not familiar enough with the man and his life to feel able to pass comment). The same cannot be said of Jesus (the) Christ.

You forgot to mention that Washington ascended to the heavens as Jesus did (he only preferred to do it as Zeus - Washington apotheosis).

[Barre]

Troll.

What is a "troll?"

[Cinjin]

I am trained to advance knowledge of the biblical writings. It's my profession.

So yes, you've raised a bit of a red flag and I would like you to offer us some evidence.

What a surprise ... no response.

[Cyberman]

Troll.

What is a "troll?"

I'm sorry, I refuse to believe that you are this naïve.

[houseofcantor]

What is obvious, that the Christian cannot face; is the ritualistic patterning of the words and phrases. This is Psalm 22. Why would a supposedly dying-of-torture human being waste his breath with the words of another?

Ritual. It was expected. It needed to happen to fulfill the prophetic drama.

The Christian is instilled with a literal need to have these words be true, and yet Jesus in the gospel is one necessary prophetic skit after another. even if there was such a man, how can his life have been real? The whole thing is stage direction: stand here, say this, take that.

Christians ask, why wouldn't they question this? What, villagers? An old lady in a shawl, a sick pig, and a brewing thunderstorm; and there all behind locked doors hiding under the bed. Then you get troops of foreigners, talking about dragons and cities of gold in the clouds; these villagers have no baseline to know truth. They're gonna listen to the stories; if they can imagine what is described, next week it will be real as a memory.

The Messianic age, the prophetic times? When prophets and messiahs pontificate from every corner? Hey, did you hear about that Jesus guy, raising the dead? Yeah, but Cyril; has elephants. No Wai! Wai, dude; let's go check him out.

What's the worst part about it? The blaspheme, the willful sin; most often not the Christian, but the priest. A Christian comes, posts a line like this looking for meaning; the priests dance in their graves. Lemme give it to ya in two:

Living Word.

What lives, in word? Use yer fucking skull, read these words; can you not see, HoC? That's what you're supposed to do. You're not supposed to use this text - heck, you ain't even supposed to have this text - but it ain't about the trees, fellas.

Go read Ezekiel. All of it. See what you're missing. Try that Son of Man, that Holy Spirit; see what the New Testament actually testifies.

[Minimalist]

Have you ever read the libretto to Handel's Messiah?

[dtango]

Go read Ezekiel. All of it. See what you're missing. Try that Son of Man, that Holy Spirit; see what the New Testament actually testifies.

And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer's inkhorn by his side;
And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity. (Ez. 9:3)

Have you seen depictions of the Judging Hall of the Egyptians?



To the right of the balance is god Thoth standing ready, with the scribe’s outfit in hand, to write down the result of the trial. Ezekiel is above describing a judgment of people alive who are to be marked accordingly (that is what the...LORD was supposed to have done in Sodom prior to burning everything and everybody up).
The judgment of the living was well remembered in the Near East but not so in the Greek traditions. Plato learned about it from the Egyptians but Ezekiel need not having been taught by the Egyptians.

[Jesus.of.Nazareth]

No, because jesus was a fictional character.

Do I win a pony?

You have made an unsupported, worthless assertion.

---

The question of debate: Does Mark 15:34 probably contain the words of a historical Jesus?

There is no historical evidence that Jesus, his life, death, crucifixion and/or resurrection ever occurred. Not a single shred.

As a pantheist why do you care in any case?

No shred. You unsupported and uniformed assertion is worthless.

You overlook Gal 1:19 and 1 Cor 9:15.

You overlook the evidence that Jesus was crucified.

The arbitary distinction between Christian and non-Christian sources is fallacious. Data is data. There is no warrant to think that Chrisitian compositions "don't count" as historical data. All writings contain a bias and a Christian bias does not "automatically" rule it out as a source of historical information.

There is not a shred of evidence for numerous people that lived in the 1st century.

---

Barre! Again? The bible is ancient trash fiction!

Your unsupported assertion is worthless.

---

Troll.

What is a "troll?"

---

The whole point is...

A historical Jesus died as a disappointed messianic pretender. The author of the Passion Narrative (Mark 14:1-15:39*) portrayed the historical Jesus as an Aristoelian tragic hero.

WHO GIVES A TINKERS TOSS about some fairy story...now Gandalf falling in Moria!! oi vey!!

Your unsupported assertion is worthless.