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.
I think you're off on this, mordant, sorry. If I'm reading you right you're saying that Jesus' life lived similar to Odysseus' and Mark was just recognizing this fact. Mark would really have known nothing of Jesus' life because he was writing anywhere from 40 years to a half-century after Jesus' supposed death. Anybody who was there to witness all this would have been dead by that time. The likeliest scenario were dealing with here is that this is an example of Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare which was borrowed by Arthur Laurents, a screenwriter of the 1950's who then rewrote it into West Side Story. It sets Romeo and Juliet and the Capulets and the Montagues in a New York barrio 400 years later.
You seem to be ignoring the possibility that the gospel authors were working from source materials such as a "sayings of Jesus" document like Q, oral traditions, etc, whether or not rooted in a historic Jesus. But of course you are right that they could have "puffed" various aspects of those accounts using Homeric and other formulas.
My basic point is at this distance and basically zero corroborating information from non-NT sources, who can really say? The parallels with Homer are intriguing, to be sure, but ... the gospels are so fabulized and Jesus so elevated in them that they would have some resemblance to dozens of heroic narratives even more recent than that era, by the simple fact that they threw in everything but the kitchen sink. Making him equal to the Creator god, a tragic "man of sorrows and acquainted with grief", a Savior, able to undo death itself ...how is that not going to look like every epic ever written?
The bold is one of your serious bias issues and why I dismiss your views and claims of objectivity.
Your usual assertion with ZERO attempt to demonstrate why it is bias. This is just another of your usual arrogant, pompous dismissals, pretending it is my fault while ignoring my position is based on me actually doing the work, Pericope by Pericope, noting the connection to the OT each piece of fiction was based on.
You are just sour because your only evidence for your position is that you had a mystical conversation with someone who may be as fictional as Donald Duck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Of course, the fact that you do not even entertain the possibility that our Reality exists within the consciousness field of God is your major bias. I suspect you will be among the more thoroughly surprised upon your death (as I was upon my encounter with it).
1) The topic is not pantheism, so stop trying to derail the thread.
2) Once again, I do entertain the possibility, it is just that you STILL have ZERO evidence for your claims.
You seem to be ignoring the possibility that the gospel authors were working from source materials such as a "sayings of Jesus" document like Q, oral traditions, etc, whether or not rooted in a historic Jesus. But of course you are right that they could have "puffed" various aspects of those accounts using Homeric and other formulas.
My basic point is at this distance and basically zero corroborating information from non-NT sources, who can really say? The parallels with Homer are intriguing, to be sure, but ... the gospels are so fabulized and Jesus so elevated in them that they would have some resemblance to dozens of heroic narratives even more recent than that era, by the simple fact that they threw in everything but the kitchen sink. Making him equal to the Creator god, a tragic "man of sorrows and acquainted with grief", a Savior, able to undo death itself ...how is that not going to look like every epic ever written?
You're absolutely right about "who can really say"? 2000 years ago there could have been a whole treasure trove of documents chronicling the life and words of Jesus that the writers of the gospels were working from. Who can really say? And this goes to my Fourth Truth in the OP, "If God had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, God would have preserved this treasure trove of documents that would provide evidence for Jesus that would be so compelling that we would not even be bothering to debate this right now.
But the sober fact today is that no documentation supporting the formation of the gospels has survived. Without such a source we are only left with theories like Q. Christian scholars love to speculate about Q because it gives their claims that the gospels are accurate records more stability and a sense of authenticity. But Q simply doesn't exist; it's just a theory, so from a historical perspective it's no support for the gospels' source at all.
We're left, then with these inconvenient facts:
* the gospels were written 50-100 after Jesus
* by unknown men who were trained scholars in Greek
* the vast majority of witnesses to Jesus would have died by then
* the writers had no sources we know of to work with other than myths floating around the Mediterranean from unknown sources, similar to the tales being passed around about Hercules, Mithra, Romulus, et al
The writers would have to have either worked from pure imagination, worked from these myths which today we have no corroborating sources, or gone to earlier writings like the Old Testament, the Iliad and Odyssey and myths of other god-men like Hercules, Perseus, and Dionysus to draw upon for their own Jesus tales. Those were their only three choices.
Mark, being the original gospel--the most skeletal and least devoid of detail nevertheless laid out the framework for the four traditional gospels to come. There were roughly about 50 other gospels that we know of and who knows how many that were lost to time. Some of the surviving gospels that didn't become part of the canon are so off the wall, so out in left field that they were easily dispensed with by the council of Hippo because of their wildly fantastic, completely unbelievable tales of Jesus' exploits. Eventually the four we have today were chosen. This choice was later confirmed by the Council of Carthage.
One can easily see the growth of stories, details, and additions to the cast of characters as the gospels progress. Matthew expands and improves upon Mark; Luke expands and improves upon Matthew; and John takes a decidedly different route because he is now proclaiming Jesus to be fully God, equal with the Father. Lazarus is conspicuously absent in the synoptic gospels; his character is created after the synoptics and is added to John.
Just this fact alone--Matthew, Mark and Luke not mentioning Lazarus--would lead a non-biased person to wonder why such a significant figure as Lazarus and his being raised from the dead would be completely ignored by Matthew, Mark and Luke and only brought forth in the very last gospel, even though Martha and Mary are mentioned as stand-alones in the first three.
38 As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. 39 She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. Luke 10:38-39.
Where is Lazarus in this verse? Why doesn't it read "She had a sister called Mary and a brother named Lazarus"????? The answer is simple: because the church had not invented the Lazarus character yet.
Here's where we see the human imagination in action. In an effort to make Jesus more god-like the story of Lazarus was likely concocted by churchmen later to recast Jesus as a god and not as a mere prophet or son of God--a sort of one-up on all the other mythological heroes of Greek and Roman mythology. This is why David Fitzgerald, author of "Nailed" calls his latest 2-volume work on the Jesus myth, "Mything in Action". It's the steady accretion of details in Jesus' and the other gospel characters' lives. Anyone who is willing to take off the rose-colored Christian glasses and look at this whole thing from a purely neutral position will instantly see a religion that was constructed, not divinely inspired.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 09-20-2022 at 10:57 AM..
You're absolutely right about "who can really say"? 2000 years ago there could have been a whole treasure trove of documents chronicling the life and words of Jesus that the writers of the gospels were working from. Who can really say? And this goes to my Fourth Truth in the OP, "If God had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, God would have preserved this treasure trove of documents that would provide evidence for Jesus that would be so compelling that we would not even be bothering to debate this right now.
But the sober fact today is that no documentation supporting the formation of the gospels has survived. Without such a source we are only left with theories like Q. Christian scholars love to speculate about Q because it gives their claims that the gospels are accurate records more stability and a sense of authenticity. But Q simply doesn't exist; it's just a theory, so from a historical perspective it's no support for the gospels' source at all.
We're left, then with these inconvenient facts:
* the gospels were written 50-100 after Jesus
* by unknown men who were trained scholars in Greek
* the vast majority of witnesses to Jesus would have died by then
* the writers had no sources we know of to work with other than myths floating around the Mediterranean from unknown sources, similar to the tales being passed around about Hercules, Mithra, Romulus, et al
The writers would have to have either worked from pure imagination, worked from these myths which today we have no corroborating sources, or gone to earlier writings like the Old Testament, the Iliad and Odyssey and myths of other god-men like Hercules, Perseus, and Dionysus to draw upon for their own Jesus tales. Those were their only three choices.
Mark, being the original gospel--the most skeletal and least devoid of detail nevertheless laid out the framework for the four traditional gospels to come. There were roughly about 50 other gospels that we know of and who knows how many that were lost to time. Some of the surviving gospels that didn't become part of the canon are so off the wall, so out in left field that they were easily dispensed with by the council of Hippo because of their wildly fantastic, completely unbelievable tales of Jesus' exploits. Eventually the four we have today were chosen. This choice was later confirmed by the Council of Carthage.
One can easily see the growth of stories, details, and additions to the cast of characters as the gospels progress. Matthew expands and improves upon Mark; Luke expands and improves upon Matthew; and John takes a decidedly different route because he is now proclaiming Jesus to be fully God, equal with the Father. Lazarus is conspicuously absent in the synoptic gospels; his character is created after the synoptics and is added to John.
Just this fact alone--Matthew, Mark and Luke not mentioning Lazarus--would lead a non-biased person to wonder why such a significant figure as Lazarus and his being raised from the dead would be completely ignored by Matthew, Mark and Luke and only brought forth in the very last gospel, even though Martha and Mary are mentioned as stand-alones in the first three.
38 As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. 39 She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. Luke 10:38-39.
Where is Lazarus in this verse? Why doesn't it read "She had a sister called Mary and a brother named Lazarus"????? The answer is simple: because the church had not invented the Lazarus character yet.
Here's where we see the human imagination in action. In an effort to make Jesus more god-like the story of Lazarus was likely concocted by churchmen later to recast Jesus as a god and not as a mere prophet or son of God--a sort of one-up on all the other mythological heroes of Greek and Roman mythology. This is why David Fitzgerald, author of "Nailed" calls his latest 2-volume work on the Jesus myth, "Mything in Action". It's the steady accretion of details in Jesus' and the other gospel characters' lives. Anyone who is willing to take off the rose-colored Christian glasses and look at this whole thing from a purely neutral position will instantly see a religion that was constructed, not divinely inspired.
Since our consciousness resides within the consciousness of God, we have no simple way to know what is and is not divinely inspired. You make too many unwarranted assumptions about the cognitive output of other minds when you cannot possibly know what is and is not inspired in your own mind. You are abreacting (extreme disgust with your prior naivete') to be objective about anything related to God or religion, IMO.
Since our consciousness resides within the consciousness of God, we have no simple way to know what is and is not divinely inspired. You make too many unwarranted assumptions about the cognitive output of other minds when you cannot possibly know what is and is not inspired in your own mind. You are abreacting (extreme disgust with your prior naivete') to be objective about anything related to God or religion, IMO.
Mystic, you can argue against my posts with these off-the-wall esoteric New Age philosophical theories which have no basis in historic or scientific fact all you want, but at the end of the day it is my factual statements people will respect rather than yours. You can disagree with me all you want but you cannot find a single thing in what I have said in my last post that you can prove is untrue. If you can please point it out to me and I will retract it and make an apology. You'd be doing us all a favor.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 09-20-2022 at 12:41 PM..
Mystic, you can argue against my posts with these off-the-wall esoteric New Age philosophical theories which have no basis in historic or scientific fact all you want, but at the end of the day it is my factual statements people will respect rather than yours. You can disagree with me all you want but you cannot find a single thing in what I have said in my last post that you can prove is untrue. If you can please point it out to me and I will retract it and make an apology. You'd be doing us all a favor.
The ONLY "historic fact" you have is that some people
interpret metaphorical and allegorical literary art (written thousands of years ago), as literal instead of representative..and you don't think they should.
And you don't just think they shouldn't do that...it bothers you sooooooo much, you've spent years of your life ragging about it to strangers...to ZERO effect.
Mystic, you can argue against my posts with these off-the-wall esoteric New Age philosophical theories which have no basis in historic or scientific fact all you want, but at the end of the day it is my factual statements people will respect rather than yours. You can disagree with me all you want but you cannot find a single thing in what I have said in my last post that you can prove is untrue. If you can please point it out to me and I will retract it and make an apology. You'd be doing us all a favor.
You are suffering very significantly from your prior naivete, so much so that you are attacking the stupid things you thoroughly believed with animus and venom that is beyond the pale. It is not the fault of the religions who profess such nonsense that YOU believed it so completely, Thrill. That is on YOU!!! Give it a rest! I cannot fathom or explain how such nonsense has survived for over two millennia without any significant rethinking or revision of its primitive and barbaric mindset and premises! But it is what it is, Thrill.It is NOT God's fault!
You are suffering very significantly from your prior naivete, so much so that you are attacking the stupid things you thoroughly believed with animus and venom that is beyond the pale. It is not the fault of the religions who profess such nonsense that YOU believed it so completely, Thrill. That is on YOU!!! Give it a rest! I cannot fathom or explain how such nonsense has survived for over two millennia without any significant rethinking or revision of its primitive and barbaric mindset and premises! But it is what it is, Thrill.It is NOT God's fault!
Mystic, you've completely missed my premise for my exposing Christianity's deceit or you simply fail to acknowledge it. You say that even you "cannot fathom how Christianity's nonsense and survived and that it is primitive minded and barbaric. It is what it is". You fail to acknowledge that there are tens of thousands of people contemplating throwing their lives away on Christianity who might not if they knew all the hidden facts about Christianity which I am trying to provide them before they make a decision. Question for you: would you rather they joined Christianity without knowing all these facts?? If you choose to respond to this question, PLEEZE none of those meaningless evasive tropes like, "It is their decision to make, Thrill." Just a simple yes or no--would you rather they joined Christianity without knowing all the facts?
Mystic, you've completely missed my premise for my exposing Christianity's deceit or you simply fail to acknowledge it. You say that even you "cannot fathom how Christianity's nonsense and survived and that it is primitive minded and barbaric. It is what it is". You fail to acknowledge that there are tens of thousands of people contemplating throwing their lives away on Christianity who might not if they knew all the hidden facts about Christianity which I am trying to provide them before they make a decision. Question for you: would you rather they joined Christianity without knowing all these facts?? If you choose to respond to this question, PLEEZE none of those meaningless evasive tropes like, "It is their decision to make, Thrill." Just a simple yes or no--would you rather they joined Christianity without knowing all the facts?
Since I believe that Jesus (NOT the Bible) accurately represents the "mind of God," Yes. I would prefer they adopt Christianity and follow Jesus's instructions to love God and each other every day and repent when they fail. The religious dogma is NOT accurate but the fact that Jesus (as God) loves us IS!! The primitive and barbaric dogma can be overcome without throwing Jesus out with the dirty bath water!!
Some of the surviving gospels that didn't become part of the canon are so off the wall, so out in left field that they were easily dispensed with by the council of Hippo because of their wildly fantastic, completely unbelievable tales of Jesus' exploits. Eventually the four we have today were chosen. This choice was later confirmed by the Council of Carthage.
Sometimes I wonder if those other gospels are really that crazy or if we are just accustomed to the crazy we ended up with, lol.
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.
