Posted: Apr 26, 2013 4:02 am
GakuseiDon wrote:proudfootz wrote:Stein wrote:dogsgod wrote:
These gospels could have sat on shelves collecting dust for several decades, when were they presented, in the last part of the second century?
This is not answering Gakusei Don's question:
"For the Johannine proclamation of the Logos, that it "became flesh and dwelt among us": is this describing something that the author is presenting as actually happened?"
Address that.
You'll realize I have been addressing that question should you ever decide to read my posts.
A 'biography' or a 'history' are accounts of things that actually happened in the sense meaningful to answer the question this thread is addressing.
If Schmidt agrees with GDon that these are not biographies or histories and are instead meditations on some manifestation of an aspect of the godhead in story form then they are of little use as matters of history or biography.
You don't actually answer my question. Would you like to now? Here is my question again:
"For the Johannine proclamation of the Logos, that it "became flesh and dwelt among us": is this describing something that the author is presenting as actually happened?"
It seems to me that you see it as "if it is not a biography, then it doesn't contain biographical details" or "if it is not a history, then it doesn't contain historical details". But my point is whether or not the accounts were being presented (either fraudently or sincerely) by earliest Christians as events that actually happened. AFAICT, the Gospels were always thought to be about events that actually happened.
It would seem that if it's not the story of a man who existed (biography) or events that happened in real life (history) then it's something which isn't going to help much in establishing things that happened or people who lived.
Now it may be that these are things that are supposed to have 'happened' in some metaphorical or metaphysical sense - but I am starting to lean towards the notion that per Schmidt the narrative supplied by gMark is a meditation on the Logos or a 'cult legend' and not a literal account of 'these things really happened'.
proudfootz wrote:Here's a rhetorical question to go with it: Why am I not surprised at no myther here bothering to address Gakusei Don's question?
GDon didn't ask a 'myther' - the question was in response to the article I posted showing the genre of the gospel tales doesn't fit in with either history or biography.
Actually I thought you posted your quote from Vridar in response to my earlier post about the Gospels talking about a crucified Jew called Jesus Christ and Paul talking about a crucified Jew called Jesus Christ?
I keep trying to drag the thread away from 'HJers' are ______' and 'MJers are _______' by going back to discussions of things like 'what genre are the gospels?' so we can get back to the issues.
As far as the gospels and the epistles talking about a Jesus - perhaps I was subconsciously influenced by your post and it was pure synchronicity that that was the discussion at Vridar at that time...