Did Jesus Exist?

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Interesting coming from the guy who claims imagining traveling is the same as actually traveling? 
 

 

You might imagine what is in my head but you cant check to find out 

I can check any projection of consciousness against the real thing  and see if it matches up.

  indeed that is how i establish if a projection is to a real time and place on earth.  

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Crikey said:

Jesus said prayer works, so who should we believe, him or you?..Hmm tricky one..

True story- a military history website owner said he was having to wind up the site in order to care for his sick wife who was awaiting a heart/lung transplant, so I asked him if he'd like me and a few Christian pals to say a prayer for her, but he said- "No thanks, she's got people around her" (whatever that was supposed to mean). So we went our separate ways and I never knew if she pulled through.

Question for UM atheists- if you had a sick relative and somebody offered to pray for her, what would you say to them?

I ask them for permission first, and if the y would like/be happy, for me to pray for them 

I've never been knocked back 

Some outcomes are happy, but my neighbour died from cancer a few months back 

I had included in my prayers that, if the bloke had to die, god should care for the wife and help her through it,  giving her courage and strength  

That seems to be working, although I am not terribly close to her (she has children and grandchildren in the town)  

I do visit to chat, and drop off fruit, veges, etc from our garden, as i do with all my neighbors  Plums have been the big success this year, and i've given away hundreds of them 

Oh sorry I am not an atheist, but i am a strong believer that  prayer can be so powerful  that we should never pray for something for another, without their permission 

Edited February 2, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Herbert Sanders]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

true perhaps, but our economies are driven by human greed and materialism 

It will be interesting to watch what happens as the population and demand /consumption decreases 

I was very fortunate finding out about the age of 50, that while  i really loved my work, i could exist on about half the hours of work by decreasing my consumption/expenditure 

gradually i continued to decrease consumption until  I can  now exist on the age pension quite comfortably  For example the shoes i am wearing are the only pair i have. They are several years old and cost me $2 yet they are warm, comfortable, and waterproof, and i do have a pair of sandals and a pair of slippers 

However, so many remain trapped the cycle of desire, and the need to generate more wealth to purchase ether things, or emotional rewards like excitement 

Its sad that so many people work such long hours seeking material rewards,  and thus lose so much of importance,  like time with family  

 

Hence the interest, we need society but it seems periodical. This to me is what the bible is about as well. If so then we have not only been forewarned but we have also found a single truth.

[Herbert Sanders]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Time is linear and progressive, but certain things, like human values and social mores, can be cyclical, over both long and short cycles of time 

This is natural for many reasons; from  the nature of human parenting (eg children tend to reject their parents values as part of establishing an identity, yet often revert to those of their grandparents who are seen as wise but not authoritarian)   to the basic nature of human psychology and especially our needs  

I understand that lol. But the deepness if cyclical nature should be investigated. It is all about them sevens and seven times sevens (called jubilees).

There is more to it then what you are stating. That is trivial.

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, Habitat said:

I really am not that interested in personalities and celebrities, and especially purported demi-Gods, I am firmly of the view the chap was a man that came into the world in the usual way, which is not to say he was typical of his cohort. Whoever wrote the NT, even if it was largely dramatic licence, either knew the mystic "secret", or was/were quoting someone who did. That is really the guts of it, the exposition of a transformative experience, in theory available to all, and the bible story merely a vehicle to convey it. I am very confident if this particular tale did not take hold, another similar one would have, there being nothing unique about the JC character that I can see.

Which cares about the mystic secret BS you hang your hat on. You're just another crackpot new ager. You seem to think JC was not be of your just vs, but it's more likely that the one legend but scam conglomeration of many, were they all mystics or are you just speaking out if your rear end again to divert the discussion? 

How can JC be a mystic if he is a meta-personality? That's the question you keep dodging. Can you answer it?

[Alchopwn]

22 hours ago, Mark Sanders said:

Faith is about being convinced by the evidence of things not seen.

So people who witness miracles can't have faith then?  Clearly they have seen the miracle, and therefore, by your definition, they have no faith.  To have faith they need to hear about a miracle and believe it without evidence.

Does anyone else wonder why I find this so very unattractive?

22 hours ago, Habitat said:

But never mind, as the man said, "he who truly seeks, shall find". 

And what about the people who seek continuously but never find a thing?  You see here, in this quote, the word "truly" is shorthand for "someone who is already convinced before they ever start seeking, and thus doesn't really need any proof".  The entire claim is founded on utter dishonesty.  A person who truly "truly" seeks should have no preconceptions.

21 hours ago, Crikey said:

Depends which religion you're talking about mate, admittedly most are crocks but Christianity seems to be the real deal.  Scientists estimate there are thousands of advanced civilisations in our galaxy alone (google 'Drake Equation'), and Jesus said straight out he wasn't from this earth, and demonstrated other-worldly powers with his 37 miracles, go figger.  Sadly he got the same reception from scaredy-cat humans as other alien visitors have got, and he still scares some people today.

So if Jesus was a space alien, how come he didn't know that a mustard seed isn't even the smallest seed in Judea, let alone the world? Jesus maintains that mustard seeds are smaller than poppy seeds, and are in fact "the smallest seed of all", but I have news for him... Poppies were cultivated in Judea in the time of Jesus, and their seeds are far smaller than mustard seeds.  I don't think a legit space alien would make such a dumbass statement.  Real space aliens would fact check before spouting BS, or do you think Jesus is the same kind of space alien as Trump?

21 hours ago, Habitat said:

Perhaps you can post similar proof that what I say about the so-called "perennial philosophy" and JC's undoubted "membership" of it, cannot work ?

I like Aldous Huxley (author of "the Perennial Philosophy") as an author, but the notion of a perennial philosophy flies in the face of the fact that none of the Great Religions actually agree on everything, and some don't agree on much at all, except for some sort of ground level morality, and in the case of Islam, often not even that.  When you choose to accept a religion, you choose to take on centuries of intellectual and cultural baggage, and much of it will simply never fit with your life, just as it seldom fitted with the lives of those who were perpetuating the meme before you.  And what does this lead to?  Much like "The Perennial Philosophy" it degenerates into a massive festival of cherry picking.  So is the philosophy of JC perennial?  Yes... but only if you are already a Christian.

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by Alchopwn

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

A good begining You could do a lot worse 

or follow king arthur or william tell or biggles or jack reacher or even Tasselhoff Burfoot  

 

"Tasslehoff yawned. 'Well,' he said, putting the map back carefully in the case, 'it's a problem that will be solved by wiser heads than mine. I'm along for the fun.'" 

 

"'You know, Flint,' the kender ((Tas)) said seriously, 'my people don't fear death. In a way we look forward to it- the last big adventure. But I think I'd feel badly about leaving this life. I'd miss my things' -he patted his pouches- 'and my maps, and you and Tanis. Unless' he added brightly, we all go to the same place when we die.'

 

"'What did your father say?' asked Fizban gently.
'He said kenders were small because we were meant to do small things. 'If you look at all the big things in the world closely,' he said, 'you'll see that they're really made up of small things all joined together.' That big dragon down there comes to nothing but tiny drops of blood, maybe. It's the small things that make the difference.'" (398) ((Tas)

 

http://www.oocities.org/lunastuff/quote3/KenderQ.html

we're alll crying !!!

we need some good old Tasslehoff quotes to cheer us up
here are some ones i like... don't know where i found them:

There and back again...? I've been there and it was good, being back is even better. If you follow a road long enough, it will always take you home

.Without the darkness, we could never see the stars.

Was it something I said? Whatever it was, I didn’t mean it. I haven’t meant anything I’ve said for years. Except what I just said. I think.

here is a tasslehoff quote: "A chicken with it's neck wrung is different than a chicken with it's head chopped off. But does it matter to the chicken?

here are the other ones:

Sometimes, the best magic wand is a 2X4, well wielded...

Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's troublesome.

Women are like Rubik's Cubes, just when you think you have them figured out,
you find out that the orange square is on the wrong side.

might as well try to understand the sun. It simply is, and it is not to be understood. You cannot live without it, but it exacts a price. So it is with women.

I try to be nice, but I'm not a nice person. There is a distinct difference; make a note of it.

If you expect the unexpected, is it really all that unexpected?

here is 1 about me:
I am nobody and nobody is perfect, therefore I am perfect... lol

http://www.dragonlanceforums.com/archive/index.php/t-4237-p-2.html

 

Seriously.

WTF.

[Mr Walker]

40 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

Nope.  The Bible represents god.  If god doesn't like the Bible, god can change the bible, and stop being misrepresented, and god can do this retrospectively without us ever knowing as god is all-powerful.  Every mistake in the Bible is proof that God is either not benevolent, or not perfect, or not omniscient, or not all powerful.  Of course the easiest conclusion to draw is that God doesn't even exist.

roflmao 

Now tha t pov represents the complete fallacy and illogicality of an argument 

Just where is your starting point, your own belief, and thus your line of logic

eg Which god does the bible represent ? 

Who  is to say tha t, however god rewrote the bible, some people would  not  still take offence a t his POV 

in philosophical terms, the bible is what it is.

It  is up to an individual to take what the y can from it , or ignore it completely 

millions of people take  hope, courage, strength and empowerment from  the words of the bible.

Millions do their best to live like christ did.  Just because oyu see it differently doesn't make you  right, and them all wrong   

Ps i am not a biblical literalist or creationist. But i recognise its power to heal, give comfort, and to empower the powerless.    We tend to forget that originally it  was the religion of the weak the dispossessed the poor, sick or helpless, and of women .

[Mr Walker]

32 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Seriously.

WTF.

lol Just pointing out that many humans get their values from fictional characters. (or more accurately from  the values imbued into those characters by their writers, which is a lot like the bible characters. ) 

I grew up on the classics, and Dickens, Tolstoy,  Tolkein,  RL stevenson, and RM Ballantyne informed my views and values.

  Later, all those other characters from fiction  whom i mentioned,  helped shape my values and character, including chivalry, honesty, courage, duty, honour, hard work, discipline   and sacrifice.

  I wanted to be LIKE william tell,robin hood, king arthur, biggles, hornblower and the marshals and sheriffs of the  american west  

you asked if hab followed the code of superman

 

 ............................................................................................................................

Follow Superman then?

A good beginning You could do a lot worse 

or follow king arthur or william tell or biggles or jack reacher or even Tasselhoff Burfoot  

............................................................................................................................................

I dont know about him but Superman  informed my code of living as a child,  teenager, and even an adult, as did the values of hundreds of fictional men and women  including from the classics and the then brand new Marvel Comics 

Hence my current avatar;  the human aspect of my greatest longest living fictional hero.  Mr walker /the phantom /the ghost who walks . I have every copy of his comics since the 1960s and some going back even further .

On the other hand, i also view, and sometimes play, life like Calvinball   

 

quote

Calvinball is a game invented by Calvin and Hobbes. Calvinball has no rules; the players make up their own rules as they go along, making it so that no Calvinball game is like another.

 

Sorry but i couldn't cut and paste the site for this successfully.  If you just google calvinball images  you will find many more 

In the eighties/nineties  as a thirty/forty year old, I gained a lot of wisdom from the Dragonlance characters.

https://www.bookseriesinorder.com/dragonlance/

Tas was one of my favourites, with real wisdom  (for a Kender)   

Edited February 2, 2020 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Maybe the original ending was lost, but if one understands Marks symbology the original ending fits (whoever thinks the ending we received today is genuine to Mark must have been dropped on their head as a child).

You could do a thread on the ending of Mark (but it'd probably end up as a duet between us, since I'm probably the only other person here who cares how Mark really ends).

My bottom line: Obviously, the original ending is now lost is irrebuttable. If the statement is true, then it cannot be proven; if it's ever proven, then that would require some trace of the original resurfacing, and then the statement is no longer completely true.

However, I am convinced that 16:9 is original, because it is the integral and fluent continuation of 16:8. The "build of three" (three progressively bigger appearances of the risen Jesus in this instance) launched there extends through 16:14. I join with the consensus of everybody except the fundies that 16:15-20 is graffiti, stinking of spray-paint solvent.

2 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Paul only talks about visions/dreams, and revelations from scripture for him, and the apostles before him on Jesus's appearences. So in later Matthew, Luke, and John having Jesus eat, show/touch wounds and singing karaoke with the disciples is pure BS if one believes Paul.

That would still be true if Mark ends at 16:14. The climactic appearance to the eleven is a one-way monolog, very brief and incomprehensible except that the eleven had already been told three times by the ordinary Jesus and twice by the three people who've seen him since his crucifixion that Jesus is one hard man to keep down.

Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they sat at table; and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they didn’t believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

That's it. (BTW, if you swapped out the eleven themselves and swapped in persecutor Paul and adjusted the pronouns to match, you'd have about as much as Paul ever says about his conversion encounter with the risen Jesus. Sounds like Mark to me.)

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by eight bits

[Herbert Sanders]

6 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

So people who witness miracles can't have faith then?  Clearly they have seen the miracle, and therefore, by your definition, they have no faith.  To have faith they need to hear about a miracle and believe it without evidence.

Does anyone else wonder why I find this so very unattractive

How is seeing a miracle (which leads to understanding) the same as evidence of the Good itself?

But to get to the point I believe once a person has witnessed such evidence (and matured in it) he is no longer blind but fits more in the category of gnostic. This knowing still requires faith in the matter when facing uncertainties in life. So I agree a true believer has lost his faith and simply believes a notion to be true. Faith then is more like what we commonly use.. I have faith in him, my faith has been restored (not a linguist here but you get my point).

imo (not speaking for the rest) all miracles are stories that demonstrate how history unfolds, or how we should act properly.

[Herbert Sanders]

20 minutes ago, eight bits said:

You could do a thread on the ending of Mark (but it'd probably end up as a duet between us, since I'm probably the only other person here who cares how Mark really ends).

My bottom line: Obviously, the original ending is now lost is irrebuttable. If the statement is true, then it cannot be proven; if it's ever proven, then that would require some trace of the original resurfacing, and then the statement is no longer completely true.

However, I am convinced that 16:9 is original, because it is the integral and fluent continuation of 16:8. The "build of three" (three progressively bigger appearances of the risen Jesus in this instance) launched there extends through 16:14. I join with the consensus of everybody except the fundies that 16:15-20 is graffiti, stinking of spray-paint solvent.

That would still be true if Mark ends at 16:14. The climactic appearance to the eleven is a one-way monolog, very brief and incomprehensible except that the eleven had already been told three times by the ordinary Jesus and twice by the three people who've seen him since his crucifixion that Jesus is one hard man to keep down.

Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they sat at table; and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they didn’t believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

That's it. (BTW, if you swapped out the eleven themselves and swapped in persecutor Paul and adjusted the pronouns to match, you'd have about as much as Paul ever says about his conversion encounter with the risen Jesus. Sounds like Mark to me.)

 

Why is this ending so important to you? Even before Christ his ending and resurrection was alluded to... (just not concocted in detail)

Maybe they perhaps dumbed it down so that people could grasp the story. Much like circumcission was done away with to capture the gentile crowd. That the stories were still developing should be expected.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Mark Sanders

[eight bits]

Just now, Mark Sanders said:

Why is this ending so important to you? Even before Christ his ending and resurrection was alluded to...

Maybe they perhaps dumbed it down so that people could grasp the story. Much like circumcission was done away with to capture the gentile crowd. That the stories were still developing should be expected.

I have an interest in a stage adaptation of Mark in development (a reprise of my misspent youth hanging around theaters). It's difficult to mount a play unless you know where the play ends.

Obviously not at 16:20. Those last six verses are absurd (e.g. the snake handling, poison drinking stuff - give me a frackin' break).

Equally obviously not at 16:8. Mark  is notorious among the patristic authors for not making any ideological points, but there is the signature ideology of the apostolic church, ancient and modern: women are unreliable. Even if Mark continues only through 16:9, that ideological point would no longer be made. An ideological point has been imposed on Mark with an exacto knife.

One give-away is that 16:7 is a "natural curtain." As you say, the audience already knows the plan, and the young man in white reminds everybody that that is the plan. There would no issue of dumbing down or anything like that; all the loose ends are neatly tied off.

Verse 16:8 instantly unties the neat knot. In the playwriting trade, that's called a forward. The point of a forward is to alert the audeince that there's something interesting still to come.

And then supposedly, the performance just stops.

No. That just isn't the way it works.

 

[Habitat]

1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

I like Aldous Huxley (author of "the Perennial Philosophy") as an author, but the notion of a perennial philosophy flies in the face of the fact that none of the Great Religions actually agree on everything, and some don't agree on much at all, except for some sort of ground level morality, and in the case of Islam, often not even that.  When you choose to accept a religion, you choose to take on centuries of intellectual and cultural baggage, and much of it will simply never fit with your life, just as it seldom fitted with the lives of those who were perpetuating the meme before you.  And what does this lead to?  Much like "The Perennial Philosophy" it degenerates into a massive festival of cherry picking.  So is the philosophy of JC perennial?  Yes... but only if you are already a Christian.

You seem to be unable to separate religions from the fountainhead individuals they were built upon.

[Herbert Sanders]

58 minutes ago, eight bits said:

I have an interest in a stage adaptation of Mark in development (a reprise of my misspent youth hanging around theaters). It's difficult to mount a play unless you know where the play ends.

Obviously not at 16:20. Those last six verses are absurd (e.g. the snake handling, poison drinking stuff - give me a frackin' break).

Equally obviously not at 16:8. Mark  is notorious among the patristic authors for not making any ideological points, but there is the signature ideology of the apostolic church, ancient and modern: women are unreliable. Even if Mark continues only through 16:9, that ideological point would no longer be made. An ideological point has been imposed on Mark with an exacto knife.

One give-away is that 16:7 is a "natural curtain." As you say, the audience already knows the plan, and the young man in white reminds everybody that that is the plan. There would no issue of dumbing down or anything like that; all the loose ends are neatly tied off.

Verse 16:8 instantly unties the neat knot. In the playwriting trade, that's called a forward. The point of a forward is to alert the audeince that there's something interesting still to come.

And then supposedly, the performance just stops.

No. That just isn't the way it works.

The last 6 verses are very general and true (roses are red, violets are blue). They could have added them now for all I care... But considering we have a problem with the later patch work we will consider 7,8, 9.

The problem with 7 is that 8 was actually written, with 8 the problem is the ideological point and with 9 we continue the next verses. Correct?

Tbh I think that Mark simply affirms the point that women are unreliable and you are making a fuss about it. Like a big finale, yes I agree women are unreliable... Perhaps this was too much and they needed to patch it, And so verse 8 might have been on the table for a while, should I add it? Should I not. The button-freak in him perhaps couldnt resist, FOMO. That in itself would be a nice meta-play.

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by Mark Sanders

[Crikey]

1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

So if Jesus was a space alien, how come he didn't know that a mustard seed isn't even the smallest seed in Judea, let alone the world?..or do you think Jesus is the same kind of space alien as Trump?

1- Do you know what the smallest seed on Mars is? Or Venus, Jupiter, Saturn? Nah of course not, none of us do! Same with Jesus he, wasn't a botanist either..

2- As for Trump, I doubt he's an alien. Oh wait-

Edited February 2, 2020 by Crikey

[Crikey]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Depression is the leading global disability..

Yup life throws punches at Christians and nonchristians alike, but Christians know how to roll with the punch, backed up by a healthy sense of humour..

For examp, when I was just out of jail (3-month vigilante rap) in 2002 I was homeless, jobless girlfriendless, near-penniless and living rough in a remote wood, but because I had the lurv of Jesus in my baby-blue eyes I was able to laugh at my predicament-

"Oh great" I thought, "I've ended up as Bigfoot"..

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Mark Sanders said:

The problem with 7 is that 8 was actually written, with 8 the problem is the ideological point and with 9 we continue the next verses. Correct?

The ideological point is why the exacto knife landed there. All agree that 16:7-8 are authentic.

In every way a short piece of prose could possibly be a single unit, so are verses 8 and 9. As you probably know, verse 8 ends with the word gar -  indeed, moreover, ... a word that usually introduces a new clause, and rarely (not never, I happiy concede) ends one.

Example against interest: He has a viviid imagination, indeed.

Taken as a unit, 8 and 9 complete a figure of speech that doubtless has a name, but damned if I know what the name is. But I do know a figure of speech when I read one. This one is to make a strong categorical statement (those women told nobody - diouble negation in Greek is emphasis, and 16:8 uses the double negative for this point), and then shortly thereafter, in the same breath so to speak, "walk that back" (one of those women actually did deliver the message, just as requested by the young man in white).

Mark uses that figure repeatedly. The most famous example can be played for humor (the "no" is an emphatic double negative)

6:5 He could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.

An extended version launches a major plot point: at the arrest, all the disciples run away, but no, Peter still follows him (14:50, 54). It's not just Mark who uses the device, you can find it in Homer; you can find it today in American English.

I don't see any evidence of misogyny in Mark. The woman who is cured of bleeding introduces a major innovation in his healing technique (touching his clothes, rather than his person 5:27-30), which subsequently becomes standard practce, increasing his clinical  throughput (6:56). The Syrophoenician woman is the one and only person in the entire performance to hand Jesus back a line as good as the one he dishes out (I'm not here to feed dogs - even dogs get table scraps). And of course, why do the women exhibit symptoms of clinical shock in 16:8?

Because the boys have all run away, by now even Peter. The women spent the day before last watching their best friend die slowly by asphixation after having been half-flayed, But they stayed. I doubt they had much of a sabbath rest.  And now, bright and early they're still working, come to perform the funerary rights of their faith, and the body is gone, with a BS explanation by some stranger who doesn't belong there, and if you had to guess, you'd guess he was a tomb robber.

This is the opposite of women are unreliable. Mark didn't stop at 16:8, somebody stopped him.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by eight bits

[Habitat]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You're just another crackpot new ager.

Not really surprising that woman tried to run you over, must have been a reaction to your charm.

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Ok then if you don't trust other's, comprehend your own.

If you  have no esoteric knowledge no faith, no beliefs, no inner values, conscience etc., then you are not human.

You do have them so you need to understand and use them, rather than rely on pure materialism.

  I agree; you cannot, and should not, rely on that of others but you must know and understand your complete self,  and rely on that. 

That's got nothing to do with the discussion you quoted. He said religious ideologies are hard to comprehend. I asked what's so hard about it? 

Nothing as far as I can tell. That's why it can be forced onto young children. 

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

If  you  couldn't comprehend one, then it wouldn't be a god for you  Ie if you are going to worship something, you need to at least have a conceptual understanding of what  you are worshipping.

  Different people, especially over time, will have different conceptual understandings, and thus different gods But if you have no way of comprehending a being, then it cannot be a god  for you .

People make up their own comprehension. That's what's being discussed. God can be a giant Charlton Heston in the sky. That's in the eye of the believer.

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, Crikey said:

Whoa mate, no offence but I don't like being shunted off to long links, I'd much rather hear what you and others have got to say in your own brief words  (take it as a compliment) rather than let links and vids do your talking for you..

One page bruv. What, five minutes at best? 

If you would like a synopsis you can always trawl through the thread and find the earlier ones I mentioned. 

Try heading for the bolded bits if you're particularly lazy. That should outline it for you.

6 hours ago, Crikey said:

My own debating style is the carefully-aimed "sniper" style, where I address each point separately (one shot one kill) rather than fire off big blunderbusses at people.."The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?" (Bible:Ecc 6:11)

As a great prophet once said-

"This is this!"

PS- if people want to post links, a good compromise would be for them to firstly say a few sentences in their own words and then post the link underneath as an option for anybody who wants to click on it..

 

As I said, it's been discussed. The link is one lousy page. In short it lists several Jesuses from historical record. Many played roles Jesus supposedly did. However, there is no record for a Jesus of Nazareth. It's more likely that the Jesus legend is based on several men, all of these are good candidates. At the link is what they did and when they did it. Logically, it seems to make more sense that there was no Jesus of the Bible, the legend of Jesus seems more likely to be based on several men.

[Herbert Sanders]

27 minutes ago, eight bits said:

The ideological point is why the exacto knife landed there. All agree that 16:7-8 are authentic.

In every way a short piece of prose could possibly be a single unit, so are verses 8 and 9. As you probably know, verse 8 ends with the word gar -  indeed, moreover, ... a word that usually introduces a new clause, and rarely (not never, I happiy concede) ends one.

Example against interest: He has a viviid imagination, indeed.

Taken as a unit, 8 and 9 complete a figure of speech that doubtless has a name, but damned if I know what the name is. But I do know a figure of speech when I read one. This one is to make a strong categorical statement (those women told nobody - diouble negation in Greek is emphasis, and 16:8 uses the double negative for this point), and then shortly thereafter, in the same breath so to speak, "walk that back" (one of those women actually did deliver the message, just as requested by the young man in white).

Mark uses that figure repeatedly. The most famous example can be played for humor (the "no" is an emphatic double negative)

16:5 He could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.

An extended version launches a major plot point: at the arrest, all the disciples run away, but no, Peter still follows him (14:50, 54). It's not just Mark who uses the device, you can find it in Homer; you can find it today in American English.

I don't see any evidence of misogyny in Mark. The woman who is cured of bleeding introduces a major innovation in his healing technique (touching his clothes, rather than his person 5:27-30), which subsequently becomes standard practce, increasing his clinical  throughput (6:56). The Syrophoenician woman is the one and only person in the entire performance to hand Jesus back a line as good as the one he dishes out (I'm not here to feed dogs - even dogs get table scraps). And of course, why do the women exhibit symptoms of clinical shock in 16:8?

Because the boys have all run away, by now even Peter. The women spent the day before last watching their best friend die slowly by asphixation after having been half-flayed, But they stayed. I doubt they had much of a sabbath rest.  And now, bright and early they're still working, come to perform the funerary rights of their faith, and the body is gone, with a BS explanation by some stranger who doesn't belong there, and if you had to guess, you'd guess he was a tomb robber.

This is the opposite of women are unreliable. Mark didn't stop at 16:8, somebody stopped him.

Women can be both very bold and very fearful (not that men can't), both sexes have their traits. One can be trustworthy in one context and less so in another, I find this hardly a case of misogyny.

There are certain places where the bible creates paradoxes verse 8 brings forth such a problem. Another problem can be found at the birth of Arphaxad who was born 2 years after the flood. You cant place them before or after the event, you cant include them in the lineage. Yet it is mentioned.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Mark Sanders

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, Mark Sanders said:

Im not the prayer type, when I say prayers is simple I mean it should be short, clean and not be distracting from life. Reading JC he thinks so too. The father knows means understand you are good, no need for words. Of course those who pray should be able to and a little room is left for that in scripture (very humane).

Basically what I said?

Prayer is self serving. Nothing more .

6 hours ago, Mark Sanders said:

JC is a very concentrated story but I agree many religions have their Gods. As long as they allude to the same then I havr no problem with that. Personally im very fond of Hercules.

The fact that you attack so hard on JC while I can switch shows that you can tackle single trees on the edge of a dense forrest. This is why faith is something one could get lost in. Every branch in itself is idolized even JC.

What do you mean you can switch? Do you swapped gods with mood, accessories, what? 

I'm trying to discuss the rationality of the biblical figure regarding actual historical records. 

6 hours ago, Mark Sanders said:

That you don't deal in belief is ok, I am not forcing you. You make God into a deity(cloud man) not me.

God is as likely as the tooth fairy so he can be what anyone wants. That's what I said. I don't make him into a cloud man, anyone can as they please, that's the nature of God. God must rely on man's imagination to exist at all. Nothing in the universe outside of human literature indicates a god exists. That's the only place god gets a mention. 

6 hours ago, Mark Sanders said:

It is true that region is used to control. Understanding allows us to see the means of control. Regardless if you believe or not those who rule do so it is good to understand what they believe (this was actually my starting point once).

Atheism will only give you a nice interior for your prison, but it doesnt change your state of freedom.

Atheism are keys to freedom. There is no higher order, just observation. 

Religion helped develop society and social order. It is now redundant.

6 hours ago, Mark Sanders said:

This is how the process should go, it is the overal pattern. I have the same observation here but even the senior citizens often get angry when hearing about God. They have been severely traumatized, many of them at least.

Those observations illustrate a natural universe. Like I said earlier, what indicates a god exists? What do so there outside of human literature that indicates such? 

[Will Due]

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

You could do a thread on the ending of Mark (but it'd probably end up as a duet between us, since I'm probably the only other person here who cares how Mark really ends).

My bottom line: Obviously, the original ending is now lost is irrebuttable.

 

How long ago did this become irrebuttable? In other words, in what year did it become consensus among Bible scholars that the ending of Mark was lost?