Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Point 2 is based on THE BIBLE, and based on 1) how people are usually mentioned, and 2) the parallel passages in the other gospels miss out the mention of Nazareth.
Point 4a is based on the parallels between Mark and Paul, and 4b is recognized by Christian and none Christian historians alike.
I think the theology has evolved to a point that many don’t know and/or don’t care what’s wtitten in the Bible in an effort to try to see if it logically makes sense to them?
It’s more of a verbal or ideological belief now. And the core is,
“Believe in Jesus as your savior and a red carpet welcome is awaiting you in a paradise (that doesn’t have sex)
Heaven is where the Muslims have Christians beat. Who'd want to go a heaven where you sit around God's throne and bow and scrape before him praising 24/7? At least in the Muslim Paradise it's one non-stop orgy-fest with rivers of wine through your harem and 72 virgins at your beck-and call anytime you want sex. Grouuuuffff!
Which always reminds me of that classic Jay Leno line: "More bad news for Taliban suicide bombers. You know how they expect 72 virgins when they get to Paradise? Turns out it's one 72-year-old virgin."
But you're right, Cardinal. Christians, at least the fundamentalists around here couldn't be less interested in the truth. For them it's upholding the old guard--tradition, legacy, that sort of stuff. Consequently no amount of truth that can be proven historically interests them in the slightest. Very sad when the very thing Jesus preached about they try to stifle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Good post, O Thrilliant one.
If I may peddle My Theory yet again. Mark as we now have it is not the gospel that Matthew and Luke (and certainly not John) based their gospels on, but a common original 'synoptic'/ proto - Mark that they all three used. Mark actually made a number of additions of his own which (apart from Pilate's surprise') are minor additions, like the hired servants in the boat.
Matthew of course, as you say, adds a lot of his own material, very much reflecting his interest in the OT (if I may use the term) though, as you noted, he doesn't appear to understand the Jewish context. In fact it is juststuff to quotemine in order to fabricate 'prophecies' for Jesus to 'fulfil'.
I agree. Mark himself may have been drawing on an earlier document which has been lost. However, since we have no trace of it we have to go with Mark being the originator of the guts of the Jesus story, and given the propensity of writers at that time to exaggerate the hell out of their writing we get supernatural stuff like the walking dead sequence in Matthew, which it shocks me Matthew didn't insert another one of his "Thus was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet Ezekiel, 'These dead bones will rise and I will put flesh on them' ".
I could have done about 15 or so of these examples of Matthew ginning up his account but I'm sure most of you already know them. The "He shall be called a Nazarene" (not even in the Old Testament) " Rachael weeping...." (totally bogus interpretation) etc and yet for all the fraud in Matthew BaptistFundie and Omega couldn't care less. Again--"old guard" "tradition"
But as normstad pointed out in his thread the old guard is dying out. In 13 years Protestantism dropped by 14%. That's 1% a year which extrapolated means that in 36 years years there won't be any protestants left. Maybe a few neurotics hanging on but on the whole Christianity's days are over. Guys like Baptist, ozzy and Omega are a dying breed. When they're gone there won't be anyone to replace them.
Which always reminds me of that classic Jay Leno line: "More bad news for Taliban suicide bombers. You know how they expect 72 virgins when they get to Paradise? Turns out it's one 72-year-old virgin."
Point 2 is based on THE BIBLE, and based on 1) how people are usually mentioned, and 2) the parallel passages in the other gospels miss out the mention of Nazareth.
Point 4a is based on the parallels between Mark and Paul, and 4b is recognized by Christian and none Christian historians alike.
I do not make unfounded assumptions.
You say they're "based on". Ok. And movies are often "based on" a book, or a true story. And they have nothing to do with reality.
What does gin up and ginned mean exactly? Thanks.
Gotta a couple of synonyms?
Miss Hepburn, to gin up a story is to take an ordinary story with few or no exciting details and add all sorts of "special effects" in order to give it more "punch". Mark's version of Jesus was pretty ordinary in comparison with the other gospels. Matthew felt Mark didn't emphasize Jesus being predicted in the Old Testament. He thought if he quoted a hundred or so scriptures and then said, "Look at Malachi: 'He will walk among us and give us wisdom' Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament, see, see? Didn't Jesus walk among us and give us wisdom! Jesus is the Messiah. He was prophesied!" It didn't matter if the passages had anything to do with Jesus. As long as the passage had the pronoun, "He" then Matthew could attribute it to Jesus s being the "He".
That's ginning up your story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
While you are correct about Matthew rewriting Mark, you have made a few errors, one based on using a modern reading of a text that was later modified.
First, Nazareth is in Galilee, it is not near the border.
Second, there is only one mention of Nazareth in Mark, and the evidence is very strong that it was added later.
Third, Mark 2:1 states quiet clearly the home of Jesus was Capernaum, so this may have been intended right from the beginning.
Why Galilee? The unknown author of Mark was from Paul's anti temple, anti Jerusalem sect, and the rulers in Jerusalem ruled Galilee for only a short time during the OT period. Mark is also rewriting the story of Elijah and Elisha from 1 and 2 Kings, which starts in Galilee and ends in Jerusalem.
True, Jesus may have been a resident of Capernaum all along but since Matthew has to squeeze that "He shall be called a Nazarene" into his story he then paints himself into a corner by having Jesus permanently in Nazareth. He has to figure a way to get Jesus out of Nazareth and into Capernaum for the sake of that prophetic nonsense from Isaiah he wants to stick into his gospel about the people of Capernaum in darkness having seen a great light. That's the ONLY reason Matthew uses the word, "moved".
I've been saying that the gospel writers were shameless in their attempts to portray Jesus as the Messiah, most particularly Matthew and Luke. They did this by cherry-picking Old Testament scriptures that have nothing to do with the Messiah and then attempting to attach some messianic flavor to them to try to convince their readers Jesus was the Messiah.
Both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a template for their own versions of the Jesus story--each adding a "little extra" to spice up their narrative......
[Disclaimer: I don't have nearly the background in forensic textual analysis as many of you (and by "not nearly" I really mean "none at all"). So please recognize this question is coming out of interested ignorance, and not because I have a point to make!]
It has been proposed that Matthew and Luke, in addition to drawing from Mark, also drew from the hypothetical-but-never-found Q document (or "Quelle" for Harry)... for parts they shared in common but were not found in Mark. Yet I don't see any mention of Q in this thread. Is it possible that the "ginned" sections of Matthew noted by Thrillobyte come from Q?
Again, no point to be made here (by me), other than exploring my many gaps in knowledge. TIA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yet again. Mark as we now have it is not the gospel that Matthew and Luke (and certainly not John) based their gospels on, but a common original 'synoptic'/ proto - Mark that they all three used. Mark actually made a number of additions of his own which (apart from Pilate's surprise') are minor additions, like the hired servants in the boat.
Q
