did jesus exist?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by outhouse

hey dog, I thought you said he was a expert?

So far all he has done is spouted off that were wrong because he knows so much and avoided questions.

We know the new testament is corrupted just by the story there trying to pass off.

The imagination makes the mystery documents that are possibly 3rd or 4th or 5th hand material of ficticious work not credibal.

He can be caption fiction! Able to turn non fiction out of of the wildest tales mankind has ever known. A scholar of fiction is NOT the definative answer to such a deep question

*sigh*

[outhouse]

"sigh" right back at you

heres a fact from a christian site in search of a historicle jesus

It is suspected that much of Jesus' words preserved in the gospels reflect more the theology of the early Church rather than the historical Jesus himself

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by outhouse

"sigh" right back at you

heres a fact from a christian site in search of a historicle jesus

It is suspected that much of Jesus' words preserved in the gospels reflect more the theology of the early Church rather than the historical Jesus himself

I can't tell you how much I'd love to hear something from you that I don't know.

But I'm not on the quest for the historical Jesus. I know something about it, but I don't practice it. If you paid attention to my posts on this thread, you would know that.

[dogsgod]

Originally Posted by outhouse

hey dog, I thought you said he was a expert?

So far all he has done is spouted off that were wrong because he knows so much and avoided questions.

That's his MO.

We know the new testament is corrupted just by the story there trying to pass off.

The imagination makes the mystery documents that are possibly 3rd or 4th or 5th hand material of fictitious work not credible.

The author of Mark was writing allegorical fiction, I doubt he was drawing information from past generations other than to use some anecdotes and some oral tradition about various people and events that he pieced together into a storyline.

The author was probably writing allegorical fiction about a failed Pauline tradition that he may have been part of. He was writing after the sacking of Jerusalem, so he was writing about destruction and despair.

He can be caption fiction! Able to turn non fiction out of of the wildest tales mankind has ever known. A scholar of fiction is NOT the definative answer to such a deep question

Captain fiction, LOL. That's a good one.

[outhouse]

i understand we get some value for our buck out of Q but even then its limited.

A scholar can spin any sort of web he wants out of these tales, doesnt make someone a authority on the subject. It surely doesnt make him the only one who is right

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by dogsgod

The author of Mark was writing allegorical fiction, I doubt he was drawing i information from past generations other than to use some anecdotes and some oral tradition about various people and events that he pieced together into a storyline.

The author was probably writing allegorical fiction about a failed Pauline tradition that he may have been part of. He was writing after the sacking of Jerusalem, so he was writing about destruction and despair.

This is about what I think, but Mark is not allegorical fiction. There are many literary tools used in Mark.

[logician]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Thats 's the thing. Hearsay, as you are using the term (something to be ignored) DOES NOT apply to history. It is and always has been a central wasy for historians and journalists to gather data

Uh, maybe for Biblical historians with a bias who have no OTHER means of justifying their claims. Most of us require REAL evidence to believe something happened, not second or third hand writings from unknown authors with dubious motives. LOL

[logician]

Originally Posted by dogsgod

Coming from you that doesn't surprise me anymore. No wonder you view the gospels and Acts as reliable history. Believe everything in the National Enquirer, what a concept.

Their real problem is they cannot point to a real man in history and say that was the historical Jesus. Inflating the importance of second or third-hand hearsay evidence is the only tactic they have that can succeed in confusing the situation.

[dogsgod]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

This is about what I think, but Mark is not allegorical fiction. There are many literary tools used in Mark.

The following is from R.G. Price The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory


and I'm curious as to what points you may or may not agree with in part or in whole.





I hope to demonstrate the following key points:

• The Gospel of Mark was written in reaction to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE
• The Gospel of Mark was written as an allegorical fiction
• The author of Mark was a Christian follower of a Pauline sect
• The author of Mark was familiar with the letters of Paul
• The Gospel of Mark is not based on any prior narratives about Jesus
• Almost all the scenes in the Gospel of Mark are symbolic and/or literary allusions to the Hebrew scriptures
• The author of Mark regarded the earlier Jewish oriented Christ movement as a failure

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by dogsgod

The following is from R.G. Price The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory

On R.G. Price's "argument."