Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:35 pmSomething as: it is not true that he was without real mother and brothers. He merely rejected them (sic).Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:18 pmthe problem is, that according to the same ethic of "Mark" (author), the episode of Jesus who denies the his human mother is too much embarrassing for "Mark".
Here "Mark" (author) was moved to insert the "hired men" to mitigate the brutality by which otherwise the disciples would have abandoned alone their dear old father to his fate. Hence "Mark" reveals that he considers as important the love of a son for human father and mother. Therefore "Mark" (author) could only be moved by the need of a reaction against a great theological threat (=docetism) to invent a Jesus who denies the his human mother and brothers at the point of abandoning them forever.
As if the public rejection of a mother was less morally disturbing than the mere absence of a real mother!!!
This is very a low form of vulgar propaganda.
The negationists of very recent historical facts use the same kind of "argument".
Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.