Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Post by outhouse »

Peter Kirby wrote:
outhouse wrote:Earls work has been flushed down the drain for a long time
That's very colorful, emphatic language.

But what facts disprove Earl's work?
Extra ordinary claims [Earls] requires extra ordinary evidence. It has never been produced. :tombstone:

But the biggest failure is it has never gained any traction what so ever. One academic person [Carrier] who is questionable to begin with, tried to resurrect it, and gained less traction then Earl.

So my statement to you would be, Earl never proved his thesis to even be semi credible.

My take no matter how poor or credible, stands. The Pauline authors went out of their way to "over sell" the theology and Pauline authority, but they did not "over sell" a celestial only Jesus. They factually sold a Jesus that died, and now is in Heaven. And nothing exist that shows a heavenly crucifixion in any way, its not what they sold and it goes against the prose they used to write the text. Had they wanted you to think this, they would have been very clear.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Post by outhouse »

Peter Kirby wrote:
I get the feeling that outhouse and rakovsky didn't really read the OP closely at all.

My suggestion is that an early date would push some mythicists to concur with Doherty, who dates Mark to the first century, about a "metaphorical" interpretation, so as to cope better with the claimed early age.
I was searching for ways that would apply to mythicist use of Earls thesis. Hoping for a different version was all could think of that would help.

The current academic status is that Mark is early, so the new discovery only affirms the current academic status was correct all along.

I don't think corralling mythicst into an Earl corner, since the discovery shuts down many mythicist thesis due to a more confirmed Mark date.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Big hat, no cattle.

With the way you talk, you'd hope for something of substance.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Post by Peter Kirby »

outhouse wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:
outhouse wrote:Earls work has been flushed down the drain for a long time
That's very colorful, emphatic language.

But what facts disprove Earl's work?
Extra ordinary claims [Earls] requires extra ordinary evidence. It has never been produced. :tombstone:

But the biggest failure is it has never gained any traction what so ever. One academic person [Carrier] who is questionable to begin with, tried to resurrect it, and gained less traction then Earl.

So my statement to you would be, Earl never proved his thesis to even be semi credible.

My take no matter how poor or credible, stands. The Pauline authors went out of their way to "over sell" the theology and Pauline authority, but they did not "over sell" a celestial only Jesus. They factually sold a Jesus that died, and now is in Heaven. And nothing exist that shows a heavenly crucifixion in any way, its not what they sold and it goes against the prose they used to write the text. Had they wanted you to think this, they would have been very clear.
So you can't think of any facts that disprove Earl's work.

It just really puts a bee in your bonnet.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Post by outhouse »

Peter Kirby wrote: So you can't think of any facts that disprove Earl's work.

.

I discussed this with Earl, and he had no answers to the text provided, and me and you have gone round this in the past. We see things differently here.
15 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
Someone in heaven does not die. And he is claiming according to pre existing scripture Jesus died.

Where is your evidence he died in heaven? because to date, no credible thesis has been presented.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
So Jerusalem was in heaven too?

Earl also relies on interpolations that are not settled as such. Without these he has nothing. He also is forced to not use any aspect of the gospels which are evidence even if poor.
Salutation

1 Paul, a servant[a] of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be Son of God
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:



Context, he is not helping sinful people in heaven, that is not the context.

How is this flesh spirit in heaven?
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Post by outhouse »

6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. 8 But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.

This death is meaningless without a blood sacrifice in context, and no where in text doe Paul sell a Jesus who died in heaven
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Post by outhouse »

by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin
This is Pauls context.

Flesh which does not exist in heaven
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Post by davidbrainerd »

outhouse wrote:
My take no matter how poor or credible, stands. The Pauline authors went out of their way to "over sell" the theology and Pauline authority, but they did not "over sell" a celestial only Jesus. They factually sold a Jesus that died, and now is in Heaven. And nothing exist that shows a heavenly crucifixion in any way, its not what they sold and it goes against the prose they used to write the text. Had they wanted you to think this, they would have been very clear.
In addition to that, it would be a little odd that there was no heresy of Jesus crucified in heaven ever attacked by the church fathers (unless I just missed it).
User avatar
Ged
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:35 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Post by Ged »

Steven Avery wrote:The date is worthless unless there are clear external factors (a shopping list in the mask from 80 AD, an edict that eliminated new mummy masks at 90 AD).

We know that terminus ad quem dates for manuscripts are notoriously unreliable. Think the papers of Brent Nongbri, think Codex Sinaiticus.
Basically, handwriting and manuscript styles can be duplicated long after their first occurrence.

So the only real question here .. is there a compelling external evidence involved?

Steven
Apparently not enough for someone who doesnt want to see.
The science of arranging time in periods and ascertaining the dates and historical order of past events.
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?

Post by davidbrainerd »

Ged wrote:
Steven Avery wrote:The date is worthless unless there are clear external factors (a shopping list in the mask from 80 AD, an edict that eliminated new mummy masks at 90 AD).

We know that terminus ad quem dates for manuscripts are notoriously unreliable. Think the papers of Brent Nongbri, think Codex Sinaiticus.
Basically, handwriting and manuscript styles can be duplicated long after their first occurrence.

So the only real question here .. is there a compelling external evidence involved?

Steven
Apparently not enough for someone who doesnt want to see.
Nobody has seen anything because its a mythical fragment. I'm now a 1st-century-Mark-mummy-mask-fragment mythicist.
Post Reply