John the Baptist & Early Christianity

[Piney]

Just now, Will Due said:

Maybe but it's more than enough to get the job done. 

Yeah, I can see your gaining so much traction with people here. 

[Will Due]

3 minutes ago, Piney said:

 

 

 

[Piney]

Just now, Will Due said:

 

Another intelligent response. 

[Will Due]

Just now, Piney said:

Yeah, I can see your gaining so much traction with people here. 

 

The people here? 

 

 

[jmccr8]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

No j, the gum flapping going on here is being done by those who completely don't understand a thing about the truth of what they're trying to malign.

Are you going to join them now?

 

 

Hi Will

I don't have to join anyone or thing to appreciate looking at a car or building/gadget or a fine looking woman without wanting to have it, I am interested their perceptions and understanding of topics that are interesting and the world is a diverse place and many contributors here have invested in themselves by studying subjects and good enough to share that with us the observer. You want to censor what people  can talk about by  perverting the intentions of participants and being disruptive so your lack of understanding of what is being discussed is obvious.

Grow up

jmccr8

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will

I don't have to join anyone or thing to appreciate looking at a car or building/gadget or a fine looking woman without wanting to have it, I am interested their perceptions and understanding of topics that are interesting and the world is a diverse place and many contributors here have invested in themselves by studying subjects and good enough to share that with us the observer. You want to censor what people  can talk about by  perverting the intentions of participants and being disruptive so your lack of understanding of what is being discussed is obvious.

Grow up

jmccr8

 

No j, those who pervert the purpose of understanding truth to try and sway the inexperienced with a fusillade of bs won't be left unresponded to.

Your turn.

 

 

[jmccr8]

8 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

No j, those who pervert the purpose of understanding truth to try and sway the inexperienced with a fusillade of bs won't be left unresponded to.

Your turn.

 

 

Hi Will

You remind me of the guy that owned a 1963 vw beetle to show his car at a street rod show and shine, hmm well in my book he was 4 cylinders short of a real car.

jmccr8

[Will Due]

Just now, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will

You remind me of the guy that owned a 1963 vw beetle to show his car at a street rod show and shine, hmm well in my book he was 4 cylinders short of a real car.

jmccr8

 

Pretty lame j.

 

Btw I had a 63 beetle once.

I stuffed a Hemi in it.

 

Now get outta here.

 

 

[jmccr8]

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Pretty lame j.

 

Btw I had a 63 beetle once.

I stuffed a Hemi in it.

 

Now get outta here.

 

 

Hi Will If you put a hemi in it doesn't have 4 cylinders or was it a hemi 4 banger.

jmccr8

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will If you put a hemi in it doesn't have 4 cylinders or was it a hemi 4 banger.

jmccr8

 

You're frickin unbelievable. 

Here's a photo of my old 63 beetle.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by Will Due

[jmccr8]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

You're frickin unbelievable. 

Here's a photo of my old 63 beetle.

 

 

Hi Will

Oh I see well then It amazes me when I can see a guy fit both feet in his mouth when he has his head up his a##

jmccr8

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will

Oh I see well then It amazes me when I can see a guy fit both feet in his mouth when he has his head up his a##

jmccr8

 

Very sophomoric j.

Now go home.

 

 

[Batanat]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

No j, the intent by the OP of this thread and others, is to dismantle, disparage and mock the truth about Jesus, what he did and who he is.

 

I don't recall doing any of those things. But I guess for those who are so completely sure they've discovered "The Truth™", anyone who disagrees can be labeled as somehow disrespectful.

[Will Due]

27 minutes ago, Batanat said:

I don't recall doing any of those things. But I guess for those who are so completely sure they've discovered "The Truth™", anyone who disagrees can be labeled as somehow disrespectful.

 

Oh please. Anyone who goes so far as to disparage the truth like you have by characterizing it as something that can be played with and turned all into some kind of game, will have to deal with the reckoning of it not being quite that simple.

To be blunt.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by Will Due

[Batanat]

33 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Oh please. Anyone who goes so far as to disparage the truth like you have by characterizing it as something that can be played with and turned all into some kind of game, will have to deal with the reckoning of it not being quite that simple.

To be blunt.

I mean, if your "truth" is the gobbledygook fanfic called the "Urantia Book", then you'd have to be kinda delusional. 

To be blunt 

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Batanat said:

I mean, if your "truth" is the gobbledygook fanfic called the "Urantia Book", then you'd have to be kinda delusional. 

To be blunt 

jmccr8

[Davros of Skaro]

22 hours ago, eight bits said:

Yes, but Mark doesn't do anything with that part of the Elisha legend. Jesus doesn't have a bear kill people who mock him, either. There are a lot of stories and characters in the Hebrew Bible, Mark picked and chose, and the incident you mentioned didn't make the cut.

Once again, I find it interesting that neither in Mark nor in Josephus does John have any reputation for mojo, whatever other similarities there may be linking John with miracle workers like Elijah and Elisha. Another salient difference was that Elijah was into animal sacrifice big time, and neither John nor Jesus had anything to do with that practice, the raison d'etre of the Second Temple, the dominant feature of the Judaism of their time.

Ya know, sometimes when an artsy author makes an allusion, the differences can be just as important as the similarities. Just sayin'.

Well, yeah, we're fringe. The mainstream has moved away from Mark as history in the sense of Josephus or Tacitus, but the guild still organizes its gospel studies around some sort of rooting in actual events, with various theories about embellishment, layering, intertextuality, social memory, etc.

Mostly is a slippery word anyway. Is Shakespeare's Julius Caesar "mostly" history or not? You can argue it either way. There's lots that's obviously, even necessarily, made up. If you pare it down to a succinct prose summary, that would probably be "mostly" history, and you could say that the summary comprises the "important parts" of a work with many "decorative" features.

As to:

For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we didn’t preach, or if you receive a different spirit which you didn’t receive, or a different “good news” which you didn’t accept, you put up with that well enough. (2 Corinthians 11:4)

That wouldn't fit John very well. There's no Christian material about him ever teaching a different Jesus, at worst he never recognizes anybody as the Christ, and if somebody in Paul's time said he was John resurrected (that might have flown; other important Jewish figures would later be resurrected in Matthew), I think the Christian interpretation of any such claim would be that the resurrectee owed his new lease on life to Jesus.

I think Paul is just B&M'ing about people like himself, traveling preachers with a distinctive spin on an emerging Jesus movement; in other words, ordinary competition. Maybe not, but that's how I read it.

 

 

I'm just tossing in some ideas without repeating what I already posted in previous threads.

https://vridar.org/2007/03/29/the-elijah-elishah-cycle-and-the-gospel-of-mark/

[Davros of Skaro]

20 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

@Davros of Skaro @Batanat @eight bits

I have to be honest. I'm finding your approach to the NT writings very interesting. I must thank you for all the work you've done in researching and studying the original writings. As well as explaining your take on them. All put together, your work has gone a long way for me to make more sense of what I have religious faith in, and why.

I wonder if you might take a moment to give us your opinion about the validity and accuracy of the statements (regardless of their source) what follows from @eight bits.

 

 

1. The Gospel by Mark. John Mark wrote the earliest (excepting the notes of Andrew), briefest, and most simple record of Jesus’ life. He presented the Master as a minister, as man among men. Although Mark was a lad lingering about many of the scenes which he depicts, his record is in reality the Gospel according to Simon Peter. He was early associated with Peter; later with Paul. Mark wrote this record at the instigation of Peter and on the earnest petition of the church at Rome. Knowing how consistently the Master refused to write out his teachings when on earth and in the flesh, Mark, like the apostles and other leading disciples, was hesitant to put them in writing. But Peter felt the church at Rome required the assistance of such a written narrative, and Mark consented to undertake its preparation. He made many notes before Peter died in A.D. 67, and in accordance with the outline approved by Peter and for the church at Rome, he began his writing soon after Peter’s death. The Gospel was completed near the end of A.D. 68. Mark wrote entirely from his own memory and Peter’s memory. The record has since been considerably changed, numerous passages having been taken out and some later matter added at the end to replace the latter one fifth of the original Gospel, which was lost from the first manuscript before it was ever copied. This record by Mark, in conjunction with Andrew’s and Matthew’s notes, was the written basis of all subsequent Gospel narratives which sought to portray the life and teachings of Jesus.

 

Source

 

 

It's unbelievable! I put a pen, and a piece of paper in a box then left the room. I came back an hour later, looked in the box, and on the paper was a scribbling of sorts. It said the Urantia Book was made up by a group of people with various proffesions, had occult leanings, and it took well over a decade to finish.

Remarkable!

19 hours ago, joc said:

Or....possibly Peter was suddenly terrified that he would be crucified as well.  Just my two cents.  Later, conspiring with others to 'steal' the body of Jesus.  I will say that I do tend to believe the story as non-fiction rather than fiction.  I really don't have the desire nor the intelligence to delve deeply into it as you and others do. But it is very interesting to read the various input.

I think it has something to do with the number sequence of both the foretelling, and the back forth with Peter, and the woman that matches the numbers. This is in relation to an OT verse. I have to look at it again because I'm guessing what theological Mark is relaying behind the texts.

The thing is Christianity may have started out as a mystery religion which Mark was conveying secrets only the initiated would understand. The other Gospels were written to push other sects theology (Matthew is for Torah observance while Mark is proPauline theology in that Jesus fulfils the Law). The Gospels over time was made out to be historical, and the original sects stamped out that worshipped the Divine Word (a perceived character in the OT).

This is the celestial Jesus hypothesis. If Christianity started out as a mystery religion? We may never know what Mark is really saying.

 

7 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will

People are discussing a subject of interest and your perception of people is that they are mocking which is subjective so no it's not okay to not pay attention and flap your gums when you don't know Jack about what is being discussed Alright. 

jmccr8

Edited October 21, 2019 by Davros of Skaro

[Habitat]

Don't tell me the "team" have assembled again, to discuss a subject they consider largely a work of fiction, and even if some of it is factual, then it is most certainly strictly mundane, and there are no spooks to fear behind the scenes. For me to believe that is what they are really up to, I would expect to see other threads with fresher, more contemporary fictional characters, like, say, Ridge Forrester, and Brooke Logan. But no, we continue to trawl over the same grounds, and all that ever comes up in the net, is the same-old, same-old. In truth, their very persistence in raking over this old ground, gives great credence to the idea that they know, in at least some sense of the word, know, that there is something here, as well hidden as it might be, that is not at all mundane.

[+Liquid Gardens]

45 minutes ago, Habitat said:

But no, we continue to trawl over the same grounds,

The only one 'trawling' is you, and you're spelling it wrong, it's spelled 'trolling'.  It's not the same grounds, I have never heard of Mandeans and there's lots of interesting information in this thread.

I'm sure I've said this to you before, and it goes for Will's latest screeds too:  hush now while the adults are talking.

[Piney]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

 the "team"

[Will Due]

 

The original writings that initiated Christianity are studied. Studied from the standpoint that God doesn't exist and it's all fiction (and not without understanding btw). That the writers of the NT made it all up. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

The Urantia Book comes along stating that we've been on our own for the past 2k years for certain reasons which are exhaustively explained.

One third of the content of the UB goes through all the details of what Jesus and his followers did and who Jesus really is from the standpoint that (forgive me) God is real and yes, he's almighy and although it's taken a long time, the time has finally come (1955) for the government of the universe through its administrative authority to provide the people of our world the record of what happened on our "God forsaken" world. 

So what we have here is that the NT writings are studied exhaustively believing them to be "all made up" yet for some reason applying the same measure to the UB is not.

Why the inconsistency?

Are you scholars or not?

 

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by Will Due

[+Hammerclaw]

Poor Will. He should never have boarded this plane.

 

[Will Due]

 

I'm just trying to help lift the plane up.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by Will Due

[eight bits]

I'm a post or two behind, but

See, Will? You can hold up your end of a conversation and still pitch your Big Blue Book. Even ask straight questions. Yes, questions are good, assuming you actually are interested in the answers.

54 minutes ago, Will Due said:

So what we have here is that the NT writings are studied exhaustively believing them to be "all made up" yet for some reason applying the same measure to the UB of it also being "all made up" is not.

Why the inconsistency?

Well, first off, the NT writings have been studied by so many people that many of those people think they weren't one bit "made up," and many others think they were originally super-reliable, but have been altered so much and for so long that many things have been lost by now.

I'll speak for myself, and point out when I'm in the minority (and know it). And I'll only comment on the canonical NT. Three of Paul's letters (The Pastorals, ostensibly addressed to Paul's deputies Titus and Timothy) are visibly made up. Whoever wrote them wasn't writing in the First Century. Two more (Ephesians and Colossians) are more likely than not forged. Two, the letters to the Thessalonians, have the curious feature that each looks plausibly genuine, but if one of them is genuine, then the other probably isn't (say that three times fast). Most people resolve the paradox in favor of First Thessalonians as the genuine one, and the Second is relegated to a status like that of Ephesians and Colossians.

The other six are widely held to be genuine. In all fairness, though, Philemon is so short and so unlike the others in form (it actually is a personal letter, with a very focused business problem to resolve man-to-man), I have difficulty imagining the test that would decide its claim to genuineness with much confidence. Philippians is OK.

The Fab Four as I like to call them (the letters to the Romans, Corinthians and Galatians) have the curious property of being self-proving. They pass most any test for being written by the same person. You could simply define a historical Paul as the author of those letters. If you further assume that they are not an epistolary novel, but business correspondence between people who know each other, and so when the author says something about himself, it's probably as true as self-serving remarks ever are, Bam! we have a historical record of some pretty early forms of Christianity.

So, not "all made up."

The Gospels are trickier. Three of them are really one of them, Mark, with light editing, some additional commentary along with a few more incidents, and more sayings attributed to Jesus. A lot of those sayings are the same in the other two Gospels (as in the same, word-for-word in Greek). Personally, I think that's because Luke copied them from Matthew, currently a minority but respectable view. Otherwise, there was a "sayings gospel" that both authors read, but we've lost except for their having copied from it. John is a special case. I see a lot of it as a reworking of Mark, but that's a distinctly minority view.

You've already read in other posts what I and others think of Mark. Seriously, Will, some of it is made up, consisting of artistic renderings of Hebrew Bible situations and stories, other parts presenting suggestions from Paul's letters in "dramatized" form. When we can check historical or even geographical statements of fact, many of them are wrong.

You get the picture. The work doesn't even claim to be a history (compare Luke and John who do claim that for their books - anonymously). And speaking of Luke, if Acts isn't at least partly made-up, then Paul's letters are, root and branch.

That's a discussable situation on this site, whether or not it conforms with anybody's holy book. If the discussion is not to your liking, then there are many other things to read and engage with on the site including, as another poster pointed out, your very own thread nearby. If, however, you really would like to discuss this, then pull up a chair.

Edited October 21, 2019 by eight bits