Blood wrote:

dejuror wrote:
Somebody, please show me the author of gMark was a church evangelist??[/color]

I cannot accept OR presume gMark is history. I cannot accept or PRESUME that the author of gMark was a church evangelist.

So, if Mark wasn't a church evangelist, what was he then? A short story adventure writer with no connection to any church?

The Short-Ending gMark in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices is about the fulfillment of prophecy and has NOTHING whatsoever to do with starting a new religion under the name of Christ or with Human Sacrifice for the Universal Atonement of Sins.

The Short-Ending gMark is simply a story that was composed to EXPLAIN or to BLAME the Jews for the Fall of the Jewish Temple and the Calamities of the Jews in the destruction of Jerusalem.

The Short-Ending gMark is based on the presumed prophecies in Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint or a similar source and is directed SOLELY towards Jews.

The Jesus character in gMark does NOT preach anything about Universal Salvation of all mankind, did NOT want the Jews to be converted and did NOT want anyone to know he was Christ except his disciples.

The author of gMark was NOT a church evangelist just a Story-Teller.

dejuror wrote:

Blood wrote:

dejuror wrote:
Somebody, please show me the author of gMark was a church evangelist??[/color]

I cannot accept OR presume gMark is history. I cannot accept or PRESUME that the author of gMark was a church evangelist.

So, if Mark wasn't a church evangelist, what was he then? A short story adventure writer with no connection to any church?

The Short-Ending gMark in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices is about the fulfillment of prophecy and has NOTHING whatsoever to do with starting a new religion under the name of Christ or with Human Sacrifice for the Universal Atonement of Sins.

The Short-Ending gMark is simply a story that was composed to EXPLAIN or to BLAME the Jews for the Fall of the Jewish Temple and the Calamities of the Jews in the destruction of Jerusalem.

The Short-Ending gMark is based on the presumed prophecies in Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint or a similar source and is directed SOLELY towards Jews.

The Jesus character in gMark does NOT preach anything about Universal Salvation of all mankind, did NOT want the Jews to be converted and did NOT want anyone to know he was Christ except his disciples.

The author of gMark was NOT a church evangelist just a Story-Teller.

That's what I think about it - except it's not the "Jews" the story is blaming for the destruction of the temple but the Jewish authorities who were working for and cooperating with the Romans for the sake of keeping their positions of power over the common people. Judea had a lot to gain from being a Roman province (improvements and protection) but the common people, especially the religious ones - who were not in power, didn't see it that way.

RealityRules wrote:Perhaps it is time ancient history, particularly christian history, is looked at through proper principles of history and not rose-colored lenses. Perhaps it is time to call a spade a spade, and not pander to special pleading that "ancient history is special".

It is about time "what-is-grey" is appropriately described as grey; adjectives such as murky might also be appropriate.

archibald wrote:I agree. ... I have come to the view that if I were presented with the same set of info for another figure from ancient history, I believe it would be consistent to be neutral about their existence.

Jesus, if he existed, was fairly heavily mythologized quite quickly.

Yes, the mythologising and "theologising", along with all the other tampering, as Proudfoot refers to here, makes reality very distant ....

proudfootz wrote:Rather odd that someone should imagine these material[s] aren't 'special', since they are not ordinary histories or letters, but highly contentious theological documents shot through with tampering by various people with agendas, and no apparent compunction about cutting out or adding to them whatever they liked and forcing acceptance of the 'orthodox' version.

The thing about "distortion of related Palestine materials' is they could easily have been historically "distorted" yet persistently "interpreted" to have not been.

... the first time the Pauline materials turn up in the record they're already suspect, and have been a source of controversy ever since.

.

Corky wrote:....That's what I think about it - except it's not the "Jews" the story is blaming for the destruction of the temple but the Jewish authorities who were working for and cooperating with the Romans for the sake of keeping their positions of power over the common people. Judea had a lot to gain from being a Roman province (improvements and protection) but the common people, especially the religious ones - who were not in power, didn't see it that way.

Please, you should REFRAIN from making stuff up. You MUST, you are OBLIGATED to REPEAT what is WRITTEN not what you imagine.

It was the MULTITUDE of Jews that cried Crucify Him. The Roman authotities did NOT really want to crucify Jesus.

Mark 15

12 And Pilate again answered and said to them: What then will you that I shall do with him whom you call King of the Jews?

13 They again cried out: Crucify him.

14 But Pilate said to them: Why, what evil has he done? But they cried out vehemently: Crucify him.

15 And Pilate, willing to satisfy the multitude, released to them Barabbas, and delivered Jesus, after he had scourged him, to be crucified.

And to add insult to injury, the author of gMark also claimed Jesus was Betrayed, Abandoned and Denied by his own disciples.

The author of gMark is NOT an evangelist of the Church but was writing a story to EXPLAIN or BLAME the Jews for the Fall of the Jewish Temple ans the Calamities of the Jews in the destruction of Jerusalem.

When the Short-Ending of gMark was written sometime AFTER the Fall of the Temple there was NO character known among the Jews as Jesus Christ the Savior and a Human Sacrifice for the Universal Atonement of Sins.

The LAST words of Peter in gMark was that he did NOT know Jesus and the visitors to the empty tomb told NO-ONE that Jesus was resurrected because they were AFRAID.

dejuror wrote: ... The author of gMark is NOT an evangelist of the Church but was writing a story to Explain or Blame the Jews for the Fall of the Jewish Temple and the Calamities of the Jews in the destruction of Jerusalem.

When the Short-Ending of gMark was written- sometime AFTER the Fall of the Temple - there was NO character known among the Jews as Jesus Christ the Savior and a Human Sacrifice for the Universal Atonement of Sins.

Yes, it is likely to have been, and continue to be, fiction or mythology, or both.

But that means Jews and Romans were Not really involved, at all.

So, this ....

It was the Multidude of Jews that cried Crucify Him. The Roman authotities did NOT really want to crucify Jesus.

Mark 15

12 And Pilate again answered and said to them: What then will you that I shall do with him whom you call King of the Jews?
13 They again cried out: Crucify him.
14 But Pilate said to them: Why, what evil has he done? But they cried out vehemently: Crucify him.
15 And Pilate, willing to satisfy the multitude, released to them Barabbas, and delivered Jesus, after he had scourged him, to be crucified.

.... is not as relevant as your points above - "The author of gMark ...was writing a story to Explain or Blame the Jews for the Fall of the Jewish Temple & the Calamities of the Jews"

And these are part of the fiction, too -

the author of gMark also claimed Jesus was Betrayed, Abandoned and Denied by his own disciples.

The LAST words of Peter in gMark was that he did NOT know Jesus and the visitors to the empty tomb told NO-ONE that Jesus was resurrected because they were AFRAID.

RealityRules wrote:

dejuror wrote: ... The author of gMark is NOT an evangelist of the Church but was writing a story to Explain or Blame the Jews for the Fall of the Jewish Temple and the Calamities of the Jews in the destruction of Jerusalem.

When the Short-Ending of gMark was written- sometime AFTER the Fall of the Temple - there was NO character known among the Jews as Jesus Christ the Savior and a Human Sacrifice for the Universal Atonement of Sins.

Yes, it is likely to have been, and continue to be, fiction or mythology, or both.

But that means Jews and Romans were Not really involved, at all.

So, this ....

It was the Multidude of Jews that cried Crucify Him. The Roman authotities did NOT really want to crucify Jesus.

Mark 15

12 And Pilate again answered and said to them: What then will you that I shall do with him whom you call King of the Jews?
13 They again cried out: Crucify him.
14 But Pilate said to them: Why, what evil has he done? But they cried out vehemently: Crucify him.
15 And Pilate, willing to satisfy the multitude, released to them Barabbas, and delivered Jesus, after he had scourged him, to be crucified.

.... is not as relevant as your points above - "The author of gMark ...was writing a story to Explain or Blame the Jews for the Fall of the Jewish Temple & the Calamities of the Jews"

And these are part of the fiction, too -

the author of gMark also claimed Jesus was Betrayed, Abandoned and Denied by his own disciples.

The LAST words of Peter in gMark was that he did NOT know Jesus and the visitors to the empty tomb told NO-ONE that Jesus was resurrected because they were AFRAID.

Those FICTITIOUS events are EXTREMELY significant in the STORY in gMark.

Everything in gMark about Jesus is fiction but it was BELIEVED by people of antiquity.

It was BELIEVED by the authors of the LONG-Ending gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, the authors of the Pauline writings, the authors of the Epistles of Peter, James, John, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation.

The authors of ALL the books and Epistles fundamentally BELIEVED the Short-Ending gMark and by the 4th century even the Emperor of Rome accepted the Fiction story that was INITIATED by the author of gMark.

It was the JEWS, the Victims, that were responsible for their OWN destruction. The Jews and the very disciples of the Messiah either betrayed, abandoned, denied, rejected Jesus and demanded that he be CRUCIFIED. That is the story that people of antiquity BELIEVED and even up to this very day. But it NEVER happened.

It was really the ROMANS that were responsible for the Genocide of the Jews c 70 CE.

But the Whole world was forced to believe the LIES of gMark or suffer the consequences from the 4th century.

dejuror wrote:

Those FICTITIOUS events are EXTREMELY significant in the STORY in gMark.

Everything in gMark about Jesus is fiction but it was BELIEVED by people of antiquity.

It was BELIEVED by the authors of gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, the authors of the Pauline writings, the authors of the Epistles of Peter, James, John, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation.

The authors of ALL the books and Epistles fundamentally BELIEVED the Short-Ending gMark and by the 4th century even the Emperor of Rome accepted the Fiction story that was INITIATED by the author of gMark.

It was the JEWS, the Victims, that were responsible for their OWN destruction. The Jews and the very disciples of the Messiah either betrayed, abandoned, denied, rejected and demanded that he be CRUCIFIED. That is the story that people of antiquity BELIEVED and even up to this very day. But it NEVER happened.

It was the ROMANS that were responsible for the Genocide of the Jews c 70 CE.

And the Whole world was forced to believe the LIES of gMark or suffer the consequences from the 4th century.

Nope. It was the Zealots and the Sicarii who were the cause of the Jewish war, not the Romans. And, since gMark is a fictional story, it wasn't lies but only a word illustration that the Jewish authority might have killed their own Messiah without even knowing it. That people (gentiles) later believed the story to be fact is not the fault of the author. Jewish Rabbis were always telling/writing those same kind of tales to make people see what they are doing wrong. They are called parabolic stories.

Searching for parallels is interesting. One thing which has always struck me about Jesus was that his being written about so soon after his alleged life (in the Gospels I mean) was somewhat unique for a non-existent or mythical figure.

Though, while browsing the net for 'famous people who never existed', I came across an example of someone who was in fact believed to be currently existing at the time, and moreover, was not a minor figure. Prester John was a Christian Patriarch apparently reported in 1145 to be the (then current) ruler of a Christian kingdom in the Orient (India? Ethiopia?). Although his existence was commonly believed for many centuries (see map below from 1573) he is now believed by historians to have been non-existent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prester_John



http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=preste ... x=32&ty=75

This doesn't necessarily have any implications for Jesus, of course, other than to illustrate a general possibility.

On the other side of the coin, Sai Baba of Shirdi was a figure very much like Jesus, and very similar things were written about him shortly after his death (healings, miracles, resurrection etc, possibly even a divine birth, I think) and he did exist, as far as we can tell (there are photographs).

archibald wrote:Searching for parallels is interesting. One thing which has always struck me about Jesus was that his being written about so soon after his alleged life (in the Gospels I mean) was somewhat unique for a non-existant or mythical figure.

Did Job exist? Probably not because Jewish teachers/prophets/rabbis were always telling parabolic stories to teach some moral principle or other. However, I bet there are billions of Xians who believe Job was a real person. The story of Jesus could very well have only been a parable and it's typical of Jewish rabbis to teach morals and morality using parables.

Now just suppose the story of Jesus is a parable - what does it teach?

Corky wrote:....... It was the Zealots and the Sicarii who were the cause of the Jewish war, not the Romans. And, since gMark is a fictional story, it wasn't lies but only a word illustration that the Jewish authority might have killed their own Messiah without even knowing it. That people (gentiles) later believed the story to be fact is not the fault of the author. Jewish Rabbis were always telling/writing those same kind of tales to make people see what they are doing wrong. They are called parabolic stories.

You don't have any idea of what you are talking about. Christians of Antiquity BLAMED the Jews for the destruction of Jerusalem and the Fall of the Jewish Temple. Christians BELIEVED the Fiction that was INITIATED by the author of the Short-Ending gMark.

Justin Martyr believed the JEWS were JUSTLY suffering because they KILLED the Just One but it was a LIE propagated by gMark in the beginning.

[Dialogue with Trypho]

....For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a sign; that you may be separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem.'

For you are not recognised among the rest of men by any other mark than your fleshly circumcision. For none of you, I suppose, will venture to say that God neither did nor does foresee the events, which are future, nor fore-ordained his deserts for each one. Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him....

archibald wrote:One thing which has always struck me about Jesus was that his being written about so soon after his alleged life (in the Gospels I mean) was somewhat unique for a non-existant or mythical figure.

It seems to be more an allegation he was written about so soon after his alleged life.

There is no actual proof that the time frames - 0-33AD for "his" "life", and the dates currently claimed for "the epistles attributed to Paul" & the "gospels" - are actually correct*.

We have been led to believe those time frames, without proof and without objective independent inference.

* some authors have reasoned the canonical gospels - Mark, Matthew, Luke & john - were some of a number stories doing the rounds for centuries, and were the most popular b/c they aligned with the olde testament prophecies

RealityRules wrote:

archibald wrote:One thing which has always struck me about Jesus was that his being written about so soon after his alleged life (in the Gospels I mean) was somewhat unique for a non-existant or mythical figure.

It seems to be more an allegation he was written about so soon after his alleged life.

There is no actual proof that the time frames - 0-33AD for "his" "life", and the dates currently claimed for "the epistles attributed to Paul" & the "gospels" - are actually correct*.

We have been led to believe those time frames, without proof and without objective independent inference.

* some authors have reasoned the canonical gospels - Mark, Matthew, Luke & john - were some of a number stories doing the rounds for centuries, and were the most popular b/c they aligned with the olde testament prophecies

But nonetheless, I think it's reaonable to say that they were set in the recent past, that is to say that the figure was said (and quite possibly thought) to have existed recently. I'm thinking Herod, for example, and Pilate.

They were collated into the first bibles in the 4th century, such as Codex Sinaiticus & Codex Vaticanus - but when they were written or first circulated is, as far as I am concerned, up for discussion. Some say they were circulating, in various forms and variations, well before 1AD

dejuror wrote:

Corky wrote:....... It was the Zealots and the Sicarii who were the cause of the Jewish war, not the Romans. And, since gMark is a fictional story, it wasn't lies but only a word illustration that the Jewish authority might have killed their own Messiah without even knowing it. That people (gentiles) later believed the story to be fact is not the fault of the author. Jewish Rabbis were always telling/writing those same kind of tales to make people see what they are doing wrong. They are called parabolic stories.

You don't have any idea of what you are talking about. Christians of Antiquity BLAMED the Jews for the destruction of Jerusalem and the Fall of the Jewish Temple. Christians BELIEVED the Fiction that was INITIATED by the author of the Short-Ending gMark.

[/quote]
You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter what the "Christians of Antiquity" believed about the Jews - they were wrong in their beliefs. It was a rebellion led by the Zealots that caused the Roman/Jewish wars (both of them). It was not the Jewish people who were also killed by the Zealots because of refusing to join the rebellion. Besides that, most Jews of the known world at that time didn't even take part in the Jewish wars in Galilee and Judea.

RealityRules wrote:They were collated into the first bibles in the 4th century, such as Codex Sinaiticus & Codex Vaticanus - but when they were written or first circulated is, as far as I am concerned, up for discussion. Some say they were circulating, in various forms and variations, well before 1AD

Without being able to get back into all the details, it's been a while and my memory is a bit rusty, I'm fairly sure that material from them (the gospels) was referenced by others around the end of the first century (I assume you meant 100AD). Ignatius referred to Matthew, and Ignatius died in 108 AD. Even Tacitus' report, in writing about people following a Jesus who was killed by Pilate, was only 116AD, and he was writing about the followers having reached Rome, and referring back to events there much earlier, possibly between 50-66AD.

Corky wrote:...You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter what the "Christians of Antiquity" believed about the Jews - they were wrong in their beliefs. It was a rebellion led by the Zealots that caused the Roman/Jewish wars (both of them). It was not the Jewish people who were also killed by the Zealots because of refusing to join the rebellion. Besides that, most Jews of the known world at that time didn't even take part in the Jewish wars in Galilee and Judea.

It MUST matter what Christians of antiquity believed. If one to wants to UNDERSTAND the history of any Cult it is IMPERATIVE that it is FIRST understood what the CULT believed and the circumstances that LED to their Belief.

Christians of Antiquity BELIEVED the Jews were responsible for the destruction of Jewish Temple and the desolation of Jerusalem.

The Jesus cult of Christians did NOT start because of Zealots.

This is Hippolytus in "Expository Treatise Against the Jews"

7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate?

Was it on account of that ancient fabrication of the calf?

Was it on account of the idolatry of the people?

Was it for the blood of the prophets?

Was it for the adultery and fornication of Israel?

By no means, he says, for in all these transgressions they always found pardon open to them, and benignity; but it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor.....

It was the gMark story that INITIATED the Jesus cult of Christians. They BELIEVED the Jews did cause Jesus to be Crucified and that prophecy was fulfilled according to Hebrew Scripture.

dejuror wrote:

The Jesus cult of Christians did NOT start because of Zealots.

That's right - it didn't and nobody said it did. Where and how did you come up with that idea anyway?

archibald wrote: Prester John was a Christian Patriarch apparently reported in 1145 to be the (then current) ruler of a Christian kingdom in the Orient (India? Ethiopia?). Although his existence was commonly believed for many centuries (see map below from 1573) he is now believed by historians to have been non-existent.

If you haven't already, get yourself a copy of Baudelino by Umberto Eco - a fine read.

Corky wrote:...telling parabolic stories ...

You have to follow the narrative curve, otherwise it's just hyperbole.

Words attributed toTacitus are dated 850AD onwards. Whether they are accurate, particularly as to the timing of the events he documented. is another matter.

The first six books survive in a single manuscript composed
c. 850 AD that is now in the Biblioteca Laurenziana in
Florence.

Books 11-16 survive in a different manuscript which is
probably written later (c. 11th century). That is also
in Florence.

http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/ancient/224/Original-source-of-Tacitus-Annales

archibald wrote:
Without being able to get back into all the details, it's been a while and my memory is a bit rusty, I'm fairly sure that material from them (the gospels) was referenced by others around the end of the first century (I assume you meant 100AD). Ignatius referred to Matthew, and Ignatius died in 108 AD. Even Tacitus' report, in writing about people following a Jesus who was killed by Pilate, was only 116AD, and he was writing about the followers having reached Rome, and referring back to events there much earlier, possibly between 50-66AD.

You are Rusty indeed. Please, do NOT use your "rustiness" to spread mis-leading information. It has been mentioned many, many, many times that Tacitus Annals 15.44 is a FORGERY and NOT about Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The ABUNDANCE of evidence from antiquity do show that Tacitus Annals 15.44 was NOT known up to and beyond the start of the 5th century.

1. Ignatius did NOT mention any author or Gospel called Matthew.

2. Tacitus did NOT mention any character called Jesus of Nazareth.

3. In gMark, the earliest Gospel, there was NO Jesus cult of Christians during the Entire Life time of the supposed Jesus Christ.

4. Neither the Jews nor Romans HEARD Jesus say that he was Christ or started any new religion under the name of Christ in gMark.