did jesus exist?

[angellous_evangellous]

hey dog, I thought you said he was a expert?

So far all he has done is spouted off that were wrong because he knows so much and avoided questions.

We know the new testament is corrupted just by the story there trying to pass off.

The imagination makes the mystery documents that are possibly 3rd or 4th or 5th hand material of ficticious work not credibal.

He can be caption fiction! Able to turn non fiction out of of the wildest tales mankind has ever known. A scholar of fiction is NOT the definative answer to such a deep question

*sigh*

 

[outhouse]

"sigh" right back at you

heres a fact from a christian site in search of a historicle jesus

It is suspected that much of Jesus' words preserved in the gospels reflect more the theology of the early Church rather than the historical Jesus himself

 

[angellous_evangellous]

"sigh" right back at you

heres a fact from a christian site in search of a historicle jesus

It is suspected that much of Jesus' words preserved in the gospels reflect more the theology of the early Church rather than the historical Jesus himself

I can't tell you how much I'd love to hear something from you that I don't know.

But I'm not on the quest for the historical Jesus. I know something about it, but I don't practice it. If you paid attention to my posts on this thread, you would know that.

 

[dogsgod]

hey dog, I thought you said he was a expert?

So far all he has done is spouted off that were wrong because he knows so much and avoided questions.

That's his MO.

We know the new testament is corrupted just by the story there trying to pass off.

The imagination makes the mystery documents that are possibly 3rd or 4th or 5th hand material of fictitious work not credible.

The author of Mark was writing allegorical fiction, I doubt he was drawing information from past generations other than to use some anecdotes and some oral tradition about various people and events that he pieced together into a storyline.

The author was probably writing allegorical fiction about a failed Pauline tradition that he may have been part of. He was writing after the sacking of Jerusalem, so he was writing about destruction and despair.

He can be caption fiction! Able to turn non fiction out of of the wildest tales mankind has ever known. A scholar of fiction is NOT the definative answer to such a deep question

Captain fiction, LOL. That's a good one.

 

[outhouse]

i understand we get some value for our buck out of Q but even then its limited.

A scholar can spin any sort of web he wants out of these tales, doesnt make someone a authority on the subject. It surely doesnt make him the only one who is right

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The author of Mark was writing allegorical fiction, I doubt he was drawing i information from past generations other than to use some anecdotes and some oral tradition about various people and events that he pieced together into a storyline.

The author was probably writing allegorical fiction about a failed Pauline tradition that he may have been part of. He was writing after the sacking of Jerusalem, so he was writing about destruction and despair.

This is about what I think, but Mark is not allegorical fiction. There are many literary tools used in Mark.

 

[logician]

Thats 's the thing. Hearsay, as you are using the term (something to be ignored) DOES NOT apply to history. It is and always has been a central wasy for historians and journalists to gather data

Uh, maybe for Biblical historians with a bias who have no OTHER means of justifying their claims. Most of us require REAL evidence to believe something happened, not second or third hand writings from unknown authors with dubious motives. LOL

 

[logician]

Coming from you that doesn't surprise me anymore. No wonder you view the gospels and Acts as reliable history. Believe everything in the National Enquirer, what a concept.

Their real problem is they cannot point to a real man in history and say that was the historical Jesus. Inflating the importance of second or third-hand hearsay evidence is the only tactic they have that can succeed in confusing the situation.

 

[dogsgod]

This is about what I think, but Mark is not allegorical fiction. There are many literary tools used in Mark.

The following is from R.G. Price The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory


and I'm curious as to what points you may or may not agree with in part or in whole.





I hope to demonstrate the following key points:

• The Gospel of Mark was written in reaction to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE
• The Gospel of Mark was written as an allegorical fiction
• The author of Mark was a Christian follower of a Pauline sect
• The author of Mark was familiar with the letters of Paul
• The Gospel of Mark is not based on any prior narratives about Jesus
• Almost all the scenes in the Gospel of Mark are symbolic and/or literary allusions to the Hebrew scriptures
• The author of Mark regarded the earlier Jewish oriented Christ movement as a failure

 

[Oberon]

The following is from R.G. Price The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory

On R.G. Price's "argument."

 

[dogsgod]

Their real problem is they cannot point to a real man in history and say that was the historical Jesus. Inflating the importance of second or third-hand hearsay evidence is the only tactic they have that can succeed in confusing the situation.

I understand what you are saying and in principle I agree, but second and 3rd hand evidence of what? I don't know that the author of Mark based his story on any prior narratives about a Jesus. If there was no Jesus that lived when the author of Mark claimed he lived in his fiction, then there is no second hand evidence of anyone to be had.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Painting the entire Gospel of Mark as "allegorical fiction" is counter-intuitive. I would bet that Price does not argue this point from ancient rhetorical theorists, or scholarship on other ancient "allegorical fictions," if they exist.

Mark may contain allegorical fiction, but it is not allegorical fiction as a whole. Then again, I don't think that there's much (if any) allegorical fiction in Mark. There may be myths, exaggerations, and theologies, but there is little allegory.

The thing with allegory is that there is no solid referent from the suspected allegory and what it is supposed to refer to. That's why the church started with allegory as its primary interpretative method, but developed others based on philosophy and ancient rhetorical theory to produce more reliable interpretations. With an allegory, you can interpret a text however you want, which is why it's unreliable.

 

[logician]

I understand what you are saying and in principle I agree, but second and 3rd hand evidence of what? I don't know that the author of Mark based his story on any prior narratives about a Jesus. If there was no Jesus that lived when the author of Mark claimed he lived, then there is no second hand evidence of anyone to be had.

Agreed, actually the pattern of writing of the gospels suggest all are fictional, as the stories of the supposed Jesus get embellished upon greatly with each successive writing in time sequence. Also, there so many conflicts and omissions between the stories, due to the personal "taste" of the writer. One cannot get a clear idea of the events puported to have happened to the person being portrayed.

 

[dogsgod]

Painting the entire Gospel of Mark as "allegorical fiction" is counter-intuitive. I would bet that Price does not argue this point from ancient rhetorical theorists, or scholarship on other ancient "allegorical fictions," if they exist.

Mark may contain allegorical fiction, but it is not allegorical fiction as a whole. Then again, I don't think that there's much (if any) allegorical fiction in Mark. There may be myths, exaggerations, and theologies, but there is little allegory.

The thing with allegory is that there is no solid referent from the suspected allegory and what it is supposed to refer to. That's why the church started with allegory as its primary interpretative method, but developed others based on philosophy and ancient rhetorical theory to produce more reliable interpretations. With an allegory, you can interpret a text however you want, which is why it's unreliable.

Thank you, that leaves much to consider. Your closing line is interesting. It appears that everyone is interpreting text however they want and that it is unreliable. I'm just pointing out a little irony in that statement that you closed with. Any other of the points to consider?

 

[dogsgod]

Agreed, actually the pattern of writing of the gospels suggest all are fictional, as the stories of the supposed Jesus get embellished upon greatly with each successive writing in time sequence. Also, there so many conflicts and omissions between the stories, due to the personal "taste" of the writer. One cannot get a clear idea of the events puported to have happened to the person being portrayed.

True, the successive authors tended to make "corrections" to suit their own congregations. Hey, logician is back, there was this devilish guy posing as you while you were gone. He did a good job though.

 

[Oberon]

It appears that everyone is interpreting text however they want and that it is unreliable.

You are certainly. And so is Price. More careful scholars construct detailed analyses of the whole and parts which make up Mark (and the other gospels) and then compare them with other works in different genres to see how they relate. Now, if you don't ignore this post because it is inconvenient for your argument, I wonder how you would deal with the arguments presented by these scholars? They don't simply interpret the text how they want. In fact, these academic works are either largely or solely devoted to how one should interpret the gospels in terms of genre, content, purpose, etc, and they use a great many arguments to support (rather than assume) their position.

Perhaps even more importantly, while you are prefectly content to rely on online material by a non-expert like R. G. Price, have you ever actually read scholarship on gospel genre which looked at this question in great detail, and how would you adress these arguments in support of your "allegorical fiction" hypothesis?


Bryan, C. (1993). Preface to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in Its Literary and Cultural Setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burridge, R. A. (2006). Gospels. In J. W. Rogerson & Judith M. Lieu (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 433
Stanton, G. N. (1974). Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talbert, C. H. (1977). What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Aune, D. E. (1987). The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Frickenschmidt, D. (1997). Evangelium als Biographie: Die vier Evanelien im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst. Tübingen: Francke Verlag.
Wills, L. M. (1997) Quest of the Historical Gospel : Mark, John and the Origins of the Gospel Genre. London: Routledge.
Incigneri, B. J. (2003). The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel. Leiden: Brill.

 

[outhouse]

is not every one of those scholars PRO christian????? sure looks like it

 

[outhouse]

with all the historians living in the area of jesus when he was supposed to be alive, and nothing being recorded at all is one thing.

When were talking possibly about one of the most important charactors in history, who according to the gospel had such crowds gather that everyone knew his name. Something from his lifetime would have been recorded.

YOU scholars, weekend warriors what ever, its doesnt matter at ALL. You have nothing to provide anything any more then a myth existed.

there were many jesus' of that time that were deities, which one your eluding to is a guess that wont be solved any time soon

 

[dogsgod]

is not every one of those scholars PRO christian????? sure looks like it

They're mostly believing Jews and Christians, they come with the territory.

 

[dogsgod]

Thats 's the thing. Hearsay, as you are using the term (something to be ignored) DOES NOT apply to history. It is and always has been a central wasy for historians and journalists to gather data

:bonk: