Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 39 (659090)
04-12-2012 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
04-12-2012 8:44 AM


Wait, what?
To refer to Jesus as the Son of God and then launch into a discussion of Mark seems an unlikely mistake for a true Biblical scholar.
Mark 1, Verse 1 writes:
The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way[c]
3 a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’
Mark 12, verse 35-37 writes:
While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." ' 37 David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" The large crowd listened to him with delight.
What is it I'm supposed to believe that Earl Doherty got wrong in Mark, again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 04-12-2012 8:44 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 04-12-2012 1:48 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 21 by caffeine, posted 04-13-2012 3:49 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 39 (659091)
04-12-2012 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jon
04-12-2012 8:46 AM


Re: Earl's Early Mistake(s)
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.
I anticipate the immediate formation of another evidence lacuna on your part, Jon, where you will think you've produced evidence that Jesus is not referred to as God in Mark, but you will not have actually done so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 04-12-2012 8:46 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Jon, posted 04-12-2012 1:29 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 39 (659174)
04-13-2012 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
04-12-2012 1:48 PM


Re: Wait, what?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 04-12-2012 1:48 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 04-13-2012 8:07 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 26 by Jon, posted 04-13-2012 10:50 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 39 (659175)
04-13-2012 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by caffeine
04-13-2012 3:49 AM


Re: Wait, what?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by caffeine, posted 04-13-2012 3:49 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by caffeine, posted 04-16-2012 6:09 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 25 of 39 (659182)
04-13-2012 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
04-13-2012 8:07 AM


Re: Wait, what?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 04-13-2012 8:07 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 04-13-2012 11:25 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 39 (659229)
04-13-2012 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jon
04-13-2012 10:50 AM


Re: Wait, what?
Mark keeps Jesus and God separate.
Not throughout. Again, Mark 1:
quote:
1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way
3 a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’
4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. 6 John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7 And this was his message: After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jon, posted 04-13-2012 10:50 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Jon, posted 04-13-2012 11:36 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 34 by dwise1, posted 04-14-2012 2:05 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 29 of 39 (659230)
04-13-2012 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jon
04-13-2012 11:25 AM


Re: Wait, what?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 04-13-2012 11:25 AM Jon has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 39 (659288)
04-14-2012 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Jon
04-13-2012 11:36 PM


Re: Wait, what?
Why do you keep quoting that passage from Mark where he doesn't say that Jesus is God?
I'm not. I'm quoting the passage from Mark you keep pretending isn't there. You know, the one where he equates Jesus with God:
quote:
1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way
3 a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’
4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. 6 John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7 And this was his message: After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.
Evidence lacuna...
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Jon, posted 04-13-2012 11:36 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 37 of 39 (659316)
04-14-2012 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Jon
04-14-2012 10:25 AM


Re: Earl Does it Again?
And what evidence, specifically, substantiates the historical existence of Jesus if you're a Trinitarian, but not if you're a Pauline? Or the reverse?
If your answer is "none" then how can it possibly matter whether Doherty even knows the difference between Trinitarian and Pauline theology? Your entire argument on these grounds is nothing but the Courtier's Reply. But one does not need a degree in textile science to see that your emperor has no clothes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Jon, posted 04-14-2012 10:25 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 39 (659491)
04-16-2012 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by caffeine
04-16-2012 6:09 AM


Re: Wait, what?
I didn't think that was particularly clear, since "Lord" does not only refer to God.
Sure, but it's clear in context that Mark is referring to the Lord God.
There's really no ambiguity in Mark 1 that I can see. The parallel between the prophecy in Isaiah that the way would be laid for God and John the Baptist laying the way for Jesus is deliberate and obvious. Jon's simply pretending that Mark starts on the second chapter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by caffeine, posted 04-16-2012 6:09 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024