|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Jon writes: As to those who haven't spotted it yet, the issue is this: In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is not God. Except that, as I just showed, he is. You showed no such thing. Don't be ridiculous.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I confess ignorance. What is it about the divinity or lack of divinity of Jesus in Mark have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus? If Jesus is god in Mark, how does that help Earl show the lack of historicity? If Jesus is NOT god in Mark, how does that refute Earl or alternativly, show proof of historicity? It has to do with the quality of Earl's scholarship and his misuse of sources. Mark does not talk about Jesus as being God. Earl needs to do a better job evaluating and analyzing the information in his sources. A first good step would be to actually read them.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
I misspoke. I meant equating Jesus to God, but your Mark 12 quote is interesting. Do you really see the equating of Jesus with God as deriving from Mark, though?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3937 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
It has to do with the quality of Earl's scholarship and his misuse of sources. Are you claiming that he is misusing Mark or other sources of scholarship about Mark?
Mark does not talk about Jesus as being God. Earl needs to do a better job evaluating and analyzing the information in his sources. I think I understand why many critical scholars have this view of Mark and based on what I have read I agree. The problem I am having is understanding why this has anything to do with the issue. Some people DO believe that Mark points to Jesus' divinity and on those terms is is very much a theological issue.
A first good step would be to actually read them. Are you making the claim that he hasn't read Mark or that he hasn't read the critical scholarship about Mark? You seem to be rather incensed that he doesn't have his ducks in a row for a reason that doesn't seem at all obvious. Even if he is wrong about Mark, what does that have to do with anything regarding his scholarship other than that he is being sloppy on this one issue. Sloppyness seems to be something that is common for people who wade into this arena.BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator? --Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You seem to be rather incensed that he doesn't have his ducks in a row for a reason that doesn't seem at all obvious. Even if he is wrong about Mark, what does that have to do with anything regarding his scholarship other than that he is being sloppy on this one issue. Sloppyness seems to be something that is common for people who wade into this arena. I'm merely pointing this out. I'm not claiming that sloppiness is unique to Doherty. The Mythicist camp, however, does seem rife with it. Earl's mistake here doesn't help their image.
Some people DO believe that Mark points to Jesus' divinity and on those terms is is very much a theological issue. People can believe what they want to believe. But the text still says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. The mental gymnastics required are just too much for taking the position seriously. Yet even taking all of that into consideration, we must still conclude that Earl has assumed as fact something that is highly debatable; making this is D- scholarship at best. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1050 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
You seem to be confusing yourself by assuming that the words 'Christ' and 'Messiah' refer to God. In Christian beliefs, the Christ is, indeed, God. This is not the case in Jewish messianic beliefs though. Calling Jesus the Christ, or the Messiah, doesn't establish that he's supposed to be God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I don't see that it's inconsistent with Mark, where Jesus is referred to by the divine appellation "Lord." Obviously the later gospels do much more to flesh out Jesus's divinity but you can't say that a seed of the idea isn't present in Mark. It's right there at the beginning - the whole gospel is the story of how the "way was laid" for "the Lord"; I.e. God in the person of Jesus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It's the word "Lord" that refers to God, and in Mark "Lord" is twice used to refer to Jesus.
It's at least a seed of the notion of the full divinity of Jesus. I don't see how that can be disputed. Biblical scholarship has to start with, you know, reading your Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
crashfrog writes: Obviously the later gospels do much more to flesh out Jesus's divinity but you can't say that a seed of the idea isn't present in Mark. You're right, I agree that the seed of the idea is there. But Doherty wrote, "Once upon a time, someone wrote a story about a man who was God." Then he said that person was "Mark." If anyone wrote a story about a man who was God, it was "John." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But Doherty wrote, "Once upon a time, someone wrote a story about a man who was God." Then he said that person was "Mark." And, what? You're surprised that an editorial turn of phrase that begins with "once upon a time" doesn't reflect complete and accurate academic accuracy? People are grasping at straws to impeach Doherty, it looks like. Next, I suppose, will be Jon's contention that Jesus can't be a puzzle, because he's not a wood or cardboard image cut into interlocking shapes, he's a person, and how stupid of Doherty not to notice the difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I don't see that it's inconsistent with Mark, where Jesus is referred to by the divine appellation "Lord." Obviously the later gospels do much more to flesh out Jesus's divinity but you can't say that a seed of the idea isn't present in Mark. It's right there at the beginning - the whole gospel is the story of how the "way was laid" for "the Lord"; I.e. God in the person of Jesus. Mark keeps Jesus and God separate. Nowhere does he identify them as one and the same, and at times he even draws attention to their distinction. Here are two clear examples:
quote: quote: quote: In all of these instances Jesus is clearly set apart from God as being a separate entity; first he is the 'Holy One of God'; second he is the 'Son' who, being independent of the 'Father', does not know the time of the apocalypse; third Jesus is the 'Son of Man' sitting separately at the 'right hand of Power [= God]'. Nowhere in Mark is Jesus equated with God and in many places (such as those I quoted) he is clearly described as a separate entity. No wonder repeated requests here and at FRDB for evidence that Mark wrote about a Jesus who was God have been met with nothing but silly excuses and apologetics of a quality below even the most insane fundamentalists. Jon Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
And, what? You're surprised that an editorial turn of phrase that begins with "once upon a time" doesn't reflect complete and accurate academic accuracy? Earl's apparently been in trouble over this already, as he admits:
quote: This opening statement is a troubling thing to see in a scholarly work about early Christianity. Doherty's claim that "it's valid if you don't insist on trying to take it apart on uncertain technicalities" is just a copout for "I did a sloppy job and don't want to admit it". In a work such as this, nobody wants to read stuff that "doesn't reflect complete and accurate academic accuracy"; the audience isn't looking for poetic language or turns of phrase or any other such nonsense. The author is expected to be straight and unambiguous with his claims; and if he fails to do this he must suffer the consequences from his critics. 'Poetic license' is never an excuse for a factual error in a piece of academic writing. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Mark keeps Jesus and God separate. Not throughout. Again, Mark 1:
quote: There's a clear equivocation drawn here between the passage in Isaiah about preparing the way for the Lord, for God, and John the Baptist's mission to prepare the way for Christ. The clear implication, which you've already ignored once now, is that Jesus is Lord.
and he cried out, 'What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.' I don't see the separation.
'But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. I don't see the separation. God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit are the three aspects of the Triune Christian God. That doesn't mean that they're in any way separate from each other. Obviously it's not as explicit as it is in later gospels, but you simply can't deny that the divinity of Jesus isn't present in the gospel of Mark. That's idiotic. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
I'm not saying that it's a slam-dunk exactly what Mark had in mind for his Jesus character. I've also taken flak from a couple of others, notably James McGrath, for my opening sentence. It was basically meant to be "pithy" as one supporter suggested. But as a general statement (hardly meant to identify Jesus as identical with God), I maintain it's valid if you don't insist on trying to take it apart on uncertain technicalities. The very fact that we're debating the point here at length, shows that it's not a clear-cut case. I find this explanation completely satisfying. What am I supposed to object to?
In a work such as this, nobody wants to read stuff that "doesn't reflect complete and accurate academic accuracy"; the audience isn't looking for poetic language or turns of phrase or any other such nonsense. Say what? This is at least as disqualifying of your scholarship and intellect as you claim the reference to Mark is of Doherty's. What's your evidence that florid turns of phrase are completely out of bounds in historical writings? I think you'll find such prose in historical annals from Heterodotus to Doris Kearns Goodwin. Again, you're just seizing nits to pick. The claim of the Jesus historicist is that only historicists are accurately applying "mainstream" methods of historical inference, but the more they try to attack the mythicist case, the more they show how completely false that is. Jesus historicism is based on a mode of "inference" that turns rational skepticism on its head - taking propaganda at face value, treating inferred sources as though they exist, and above all, name-calling when people don't fall in line.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2320 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Perhaps Doherty simply used the phrase "a man who was God" to refer to the idea that most Chirstians hold of Jesus. He then proceeds to talk about Mark, because Mark is the earliest Gospel we know about.
That Mark himself might not explicitly refer to Jesus as "God" is of course irrelevant (god, I'm using that word a lot lately). Most Christians think of Jesus as "God" and most (if not all) Christians know (or should know) that Mark is the earliest of the Gospels.
{ABE}:So, what I am saying: "A man who was God" is a poetic way of saying "Jesus". And really, can we object to poetic (but not inaccurate, given the bigger picture) language? Edited by Huntard, : Clarification
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024