The historical Jesus--dead wrong, literally.

[Erinome]

Where's the historical part? The book of old myths that you're quoting?

[Barre]

What's the point of agonizing over the correct interpretation of a particular word in a piece of an out and out lie that has been purposedly edited to suit multiple unmentionable purposes and been intentionally and unintentionally transcribed a hundred times?

There is no agonizing, only an attempt to interpret a biblical text.

You seem unwilling for some reason to study something that you regard as a lie.

Will you have this much enthusiasm when presented with a native american religion, or how about the Norse?

Are you this passionate about Thor as you are with Jesus?

Do you think that I have correctly determined the nuance of Jesus' prediction about the appearance of the Messianic Age? If not, how would you render the text in question?

[Cyberman]

Where's the historical part? The book of old myths that you're quoting?

That's the hysterical part.

[ThomM]

The statement was Jesus' way of defending his claim to be the Messiah.

Ah - but the MYTH of the christ (Who can only be proven to be no more real than Zeus or Peter Pan ) did not even begin to fulfill the requirements for being the messiah.

First - his name was to be Emanuel - not Yeshua
He was supposed to be a HUMAN of the line of David - not a son of god
He was supposed to unite all the people in the world under the jewish religion - and have every non-jew admit that they were wrong. THat pretty much eliminates christianity from consideration alone

But - more important - there was NO reason to need a messiah to begin with - most of the early parts of Bible book of genesis are already proven to be fairy tales and severely exaggerated legends - certainly the earth is far older than the implied about 6000 years the bible dates show - and we also know that the story of Adam and Eve is nonsense - with historical humans existing on earth Hundreds of thousands of years before that myth. No Garden - no original sin.

WE KNOW the great flood is a myth - if it did happen there would have a time in the historical record where ALL the humans on earth would have been wiped out except for a handful of Hebrews - but we have complete chronological records of the Egyptians from BEFORE the time of Jewish Creation to Today.

However - any intelligent person can easily falsify the christian/jewish/islamic MYTHS as fake based on a couple of obviously impossible claims - 1 - THAT the god is Almighty - there is NOTHING the god cannot do
2 - THAT the god is All Knowing - Past -Present - and Future
THAT is not possible under ANY circumstances.

A truly intelligent person already know that a claim of almighty cannot be just on its own. THe ability to do one thing - often will prevent the ability to do the opposite. Example - No being can be the largest and smallest being at the same time. There are literally thousands of such things that can be brought up. And since there can be both a smallest and largest being - it cannot be claimed that the god can do everything possible.

But the Claim of Omniscience is what kills all the religions. IF a god did know everything - then the ONLY thing that could happen is what the god already knew - and that would eliminate the ability to choose - even the god would NOT have that ability. YOU could not choose something the god did not know - which leaves only ONE possible route - and ONE is not a choice - it is a requirement. Obviously it a god cannot change its mind - it cannot be almighty - as well. And the idea that we are responsible for our "choices" is also eliminated in the discussion. THe claim of free will cannot be true. SInce humans only exist during their lifetimes - their choices can only be made in their lifetimes - and since they cannot choose among the options that the god does NOT know - they can ONLY do what the god already knew - killing the religious claim.

[Barre]

Where's the historical part? The book of old myths that you're quoting?

Strictly speaking, I am offering an interpretation of Jesus' last hours in gMark and in particular, the words that Jesus allegedly spoke just before he died. I do think we do have the actual words of Jesus because of two principles of historical Jesus research: Embarassment and Orality. Accordingly, we have here what was originally an oral tradition that was taken up by gMark which served as the first edition of the Gospel of Mark.

Mark 15:34 (oral)-->gMark-->gospel of Mark.

gMark thus precedes the composition of the Gospel of Mark which many think was written around 70 CE. And the oral traditon precedes gMark.

---

The statement was Jesus' way of defending his claim to be the Messiah.

Ah - but the MYTH of the christ (Who can only be proven to be no more real than Zeus or Peter Pan ) did not even begin to fulfill the requirements for being the messiah.

First - his name was to be Emanuel - not Yeshua
He was supposed to be a HUMAN of the line of David - not a son of god
He was supposed to unite all the people in the world under the jewish religion - and have every non-jew admit that they were wrong. THat pretty much eliminates christianity from consideration alone

But - more important - there was NO reason to need a messiah to begin with - most of the early parts of Bible book of genesis are already proven to be fairy tales and severely exaggerated legends - certainly the earth is far older than the implied about 6000 years the bible dates show - and we also know that the story of Adam and Eve is nonsense - with historical humans existing on earth Hundreds of thousands of years before that myth. No Garden - no original sin.

WE KNOW the great flood is a myth - if it did happen there would have a time in the historical record where ALL the humans on earth would have been wiped out except for a handful of Hebrews - but we have complete chronological records of the Egyptians from BEFORE the time of Jewish Creation to Today.

However - any intelligent person can easily falsify the christian/jewish/islamic MYTHS as fake based on a couple of obviously impossible claims - 1 - THAT the god is Almighty - there is NOTHING the god cannot do
2 - THAT the god is All Knowing - Past -Present - and Future
THAT is not possible under ANY circumstances.

A truly intelligent person already know that a claim of almighty cannot be just on its own. THe ability to do one thing - often will prevent the ability to do the opposite. Example - No being can be the largest and smallest being at the same time. There are literally thousands of such things that can be brought up. And since there can be both a smallest and largest being - it cannot be claimed that the god can do everything possible.

But the Claim of Omniscience is what kills all the religions. IF a god did know everything - then the ONLY thing that could happen is what the god already knew - and that would eliminate the ability to choose - even the god would NOT have that ability. YOU could not choose something the god did not know - which leaves only ONE possible route - and ONE is not a choice - it is a requirement. Obviously it a god cannot change its mind - it cannot be almighty - as well. And the idea that we are responsible for our "choices" is also eliminated in the discussion. THe claim of free will cannot be true. SInce humans only exist during their lifetimes - their choices can only be made in their lifetimes - and since they cannot choose among the options that the god does NOT know - they can ONLY do what the god already knew - killing the religious claim.

I am not here covertly holding uncritical views of things like the Flood and the story of Adam and Eve. I regard both stories as myth.

I also regard as myth both Messianic ideology and Apocalypticism. The fatal flaw of the tragic hero Jesus was that he subscribed to these false, disproven, antiquated concepts.

[Minimalist]

There is no agonizing, only an attempt to interpret a biblical text.

You seem unwilling for some reason to study something that you regard as a lie.

---

I am interpreting the verb in the sense that the high priest will [soon] see the inauguration of the Messianic Age as proof that he is the Messiah.

Yeah, early xtians had a problem with that too when it didn't happen. A little fancy footwork was necessary to get their godboy off the hook.

Strictly speaking, I am offering an interpretation of Jesus' last hours in gMark and in particular

But, strictly speaking, would you offer an interpretation of Sindey Carton's last hours waiting to be guillotined in place of Charles Darnayh in A Tale of Two Cities? Fiction is fiction.

Yes, I agree with you that early Christianity exhibits "Bad Faith." Do you think I have correctly interpreted, "you shall [soon] see."

I don't speak Greek - beyond a few words - but these translations seem to support you.

http://bible.cc/mark/14-62.htm

But, as long as we are kicking this shit around.... why didn't jesus pull a Terminator routine and tell them "I'll be back" in 3 days?

Clearly, they did not see him sitting by the right hand of god...what they saw was his sorry ass nailed to a cross ( assuming, for the sake of argument only, that there is any truth at all to the story.) Wouldn't the 3-day return have been a more compelling argument to make?

[Barre]

Agreed. Barre, you might be better off trying to float this on some xtian forum. Around here the first step would have to be to demonstrate why we should take anything from the bible seriously, before disappearing down the rabbit hole chasing after some esoteric spiritual meaning of the story. Not all of us automatically buy into the veracity of holy books, especially when the text is known to be filled with inaccuracies. distortions and pure fantasy. Hardly a reliable source of information.

The warrant for studying the Bible is on account of its tremendous influence. It is a classic work of western civilization and should be taken seriously for that reason. Of course these wriings offer a mix of fact and fiction.
Is this not what we would expect? I think you are bringing some baggage due to conversations with Christian thought, indeed conservative Christain thought and are consequently talking past me.

No, I attempt to offer an entirely secular, objective interpretation objective view of the biblical writings. I am an "existential pantheist." I do not subscribe to Christianity or Judaism. I study the biblical writings from the viewpoint of literary criticism and historical criticism as one might find in a college course on the Bible.

[Minimalist]

The warrant for studying the Bible is on account of its tremendous influence.

I study the biblical writings from the viewpoint of literary criticism and historical criticism as one might find in a college course on the Bible.

A definite step up from the fundies we get here who insist that this shit is all real.

Still, I wonder if the "tremendous influence" of the bible is not misplaced due to its rather seedy history.

[Happy UnBeliever]

Agreed. Barre, you might be better off trying to float this on some xtian forum. Around here the first step would have to be to demonstrate why we should take anything from the bible seriously, before disappearing down the rabbit hole chasing after some esoteric spiritual meaning of the story. Not all of us automatically buy into the veracity of holy books, especially when the text is known to be filled with inaccuracies. distortions and pure fantasy. Hardly a reliable source of information.

The warrant for studying the Bible is on account of its tremendous influence. It is a classic work of western civilization and should be taken seriously for that reason. Of course these wriings offer a mix of fact and fiction.
Is this not what we would expect? I think you are bringing some baggage due to conversations with Christian thought, indeed conservative Christain thought and are consequently talking past me.

No, I attempt to offer an entirely secular, objective interpretation objective view of the biblical writings. I am an "existential pantheist." I do not subscribe to Christianity or Judaism. I study the biblical writings from the viewpoint of literary criticism and historical criticism as one might find in a college course on the Bible.

It is a classic work of western civilization and should be taken seriously for that reason.

If one is into mythology it might be.

I study the biblical writings from the viewpoint of literary criticism and historical criticism as one might find in a college course on the Bible.

I have studied enough to know that jesus was a mythological fairytale and has no historical value at all. He does not exist in ANTIQUITY, has no PRIMARY source for his EXISTENCE outside the BIBLE and the CHURCH has duped millions into believing this character actually exist.

The gMark is the biggest glaring evidence that jesus never lived at all. Well for that matter the entire NT is a FINE example of piss poor mythology gone bad. Your going to have to come one better than using the bible to prove itself.

I see you brought this debate over from here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=309296

Could not get them to buy it so you pasted it here......nice one.

[reverendjeremiah]

What's the point of agonizing over the correct interpretation of a particular word in a piece of an out and out lie that has been purposedly edited to suit multiple unmentionable purposes and been intentionally and unintentionally transcribed a hundred times?

There is no agonizing, only an attempt to interpret a biblical text.

You seem unwilling for some reason to study something that you regard as a lie.

Will you have this much enthusiasm when presented with a native american religion, or how about the Norse?

Are you this passionate about Thor as you are with Jesus?

Do you think that I have correctly determined the nuance of Jesus' prediction about the appearance of the Messianic Age? If not, how would you render the text in question?

In a sense I do. What you are speaking of in the OP is the classic duality of a prophecy. How can you tell that it is an actual prophecy, or a self fullfilling prophecy?

An actual prophecy, in this context, would mean that God panned for something to happen and then let at least one person know in advance before his plans came to fruition....or, to be fair, that God predicted the future, and because of freewill he is unable or unwilling to change that future but still sends out warnings to at least one person.

Self fullfilling prophecy is a script. A fiction written by men in the hopes that those who like the story might make what the author wrote about into reality. Self fulfilling prophecies are also "in story" prophecy. The Dr. Strange comics have used this type of prophecy before. The beginning of the comic present a prophecy, and Dr.Strange tries as he can to prevent it. At the end, Dr. Strange finds out that the prophecy turned out much more different than he expected, yet the wording of the prophecy was 100% accurate.

In this situation I would say that this OP deals with the self fulfilling type prophecy, the fictional type prophecy used to make a story more magical and entertaining.

Also, I would like to point out, that the mistakes you have found if viewed under this concept shows that the bible is not a well thought out or well written peice of literature, as its story tends to clash with other stories. This can be expected from a book put together by several different authors put together by rival organizations who only slightly agreed to come together to gather strength in numbers. This is, in my mind, why we have 4 Gospels as opposed to one. There were more than likely many more written, but those who supported them were not numerous or powerful enough to get them included into cannon. So, in a sense, this is not the outcome of bad editing, because the rival majority factions would obviously not come together if they allowed others to edit their manuscripts for consistency. What you see, especially in the new testament, is a collection of what the majority factions voted should represent the newly formed orthodax Christianity from the broken gnostic type groups that they used to be.

In my mind, many of the screwups in the bible arent too much because of bad writing (although there is plenty of it in there), but more about political give and take of the early forming of orthodoxy.

...and it hasnt changed since.