Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Except for your first and last question, "No". I am an outlier here. Most mythicists would radically disagree with you as well. There is no Consensus here around which to build.

You're the only one here, outhouse, who believes in "The Consensus". Or any consensus.

outhouse wrote: It is pointless because I keep refuted your claims with easy solutions that are more plausible then not, when applied to the context this religion was born from.


SOMETHING that has not been done here. We need ground rules we can ALL agree to if anything productive can be discussed.

How about following a reasonable train of thought. The first thing I wrote was in response to your hypothesis. You wrote:

The context of this gospel was to retain traditions before they were perverted beyond repair.

I wrote:

We can test this hypothesis.

This hypothesis predicts that there would be an interest in demonstrating the authority of a particular "true" tradition against emerging rival or corrupt variants. . . .

That was the first point. I used "true" to refer to the traditions that the gospel authors sought to preserve before being "perverted beyond repair". That is, to traditions they thought of as "true" and original and prior to any perversion.

Agreed?

My first point is that we would we expect that an author who wanted to "retain" such a tradition would want to give readers some way of knowing that what he was writing was indeed the "real" or "true" or "correct" pre-perversion form of the gospel that had not yet fallen into disrepair.

Is that a reasonable thing to expect if your claim is true?

We can discuss later what those techniques might be -- whether to write something sounding like authoritative Scripture, naming eyewitnesses, or something else.

neilgodfrey wrote:My first point is that we would we expect that an author who wanted to "retain" such a tradition would want to give readers some way of knowing that what he was writing was indeed the "real" or "true" or "correct" pre-perversion form of the gospel that had not yet fallen into disrepair.

Is that a reasonable thing to expect if your claim is true?

.

Very reasonable.

Don't we see them rhetorically building Pauline and Apostolic authority based on the holy spirit through the Jesus character? With later text often mirroring Moses and the Emperor ?

Adam wrote: I am an outlier here.
.

Yes you are.

There is no Consensus here around which to build.

Says you.

I study the hard questions, and what and why they are considered certainties. You go against all academia pretty much so your opinion is not one I would include as credible.

I like the agnostic approach, because no conclusion means no errors.

neilgodfrey wrote: We can discuss later what those techniques might be -- whether to write something sounding like authoritative Scripture, naming eyewitnesses, or something else.

Absolutely. ill never refuse a reasonable conversation with someone as educated as you are.

I can publicly say I look up to you much more so then many of the "historcist" here.

So please, carry on. Just be patient as I may or may not understand your context, right away.

Adam wrote:.

You're the only one here, outhouse, who believes in "The Consensus". Or any consensus.

Horse pucky. Elements carry historicity and that historicity moves forward with or without you.

And your lack of understanding WHY what is actually historical, is where you have isolated yourself in your studies.


Your headed down a dead end road that will never gain traction. Would it not be better to have your knowledge passed on? instead of ignored?


Anyone who refuses the actual context this religion grew from, is refusing to do credible work. That's is a fact.

You're a few decades premature to say this.

Adam wrote:You're a few decades premature to say this.

No Adam.

Nothing in your apologetic opinion is on the table as far as modern scholarships are concerned.


You can find apologetic rhetoric, but it is obviously transparent in how little credibility it holds.

Your worship of The Consensus gains you no respect here in this forum.

outhouse wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:My first point is that we would we expect that an author who wanted to "retain" such a tradition would want to give readers some way of knowing that what he was writing was indeed the "real" or "true" or "correct" pre-perversion form of the gospel that had not yet fallen into disrepair.

Is that a reasonable thing to expect if your claim is true?

.

Very reasonable.

Don't we see them rhetorically building Pauline and Apostolic authority based on the holy spirit through the Jesus character? With later text often mirroring Moses and the Emperor ?

We are testing your claim that

The context of this gospel [i.e. the Gospel of Mark] was to retain traditions before they were perverted beyond repair.

I cannot see where the author of the Gospel of Mark has made any effort to convince readers that what he has written is "the correct" form of the gospel tradition that needs to be guarded from other corruptions of it.

When I read other ancient works of history or biography I very often find clear attempts to reassure readers that what they are reading is the true version. Example, authors will tell readers where they got their information from and why they know their writing is worth more than anything else that has been written on the subject. But I don't see anything like that in the Gospel of Mark.

Comment?