Page 4 of 5
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:23 pm
by outhouse
davidbrainerd wrote: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).
Definitely. No one ever attacked the celestial Jesus because that was not the context Paul was selling.
Paul sold a dead guy who was in heaven who was resurrected to clean up human sin, IMHO
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:15 pm
by lsayre
outhouse wrote:Definitely. No one ever attacked the celestial Jesus because that was not the context Paul was selling.
Paul sold a dead guy who was in heaven who was resurrected to clean up human sin, IMHO
When did he die, and when was he resurrected? Did he live (spend time) on earth after his resurrection? Was this the earliest level of Christianity?
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:31 pm
by davidbrainerd
lsayre wrote:outhouse wrote:Definitely. No one ever attacked the celestial Jesus because that was not the context Paul was selling.
Paul sold a dead guy who was in heaven who was resurrected to clean up human sin, IMHO
When did he die, and when was he resurrected? Did he live (spend time) on earth after his resurrection? Was this the earliest level of Christianity?
Just because Paul doesn't know or care when it happened doesn't mean he's saying it happened in heaven. Heaven has time too. (The idea of heaven being something outside time wasn't invented yet. That was invented later to solve problems with the OT and predestination conflicting.) Why doesn't he tell us when it happened in heaven? Same argument. When and where are not related.
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:26 pm
by outhouse
lsayre wrote:Was this the earliest level of Christianity?
Yes.
Who would find value in the martyrdom mythology? Hellenist in the Diaspora who was already perverting Judaism? or pious Jews in Israel?
Where did the text originate? the Diaspora? or Israel?
What was Paul selling? a guy that died and was resurrected as "son of god" who was to deal with mans sin.
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:16 pm
by rakovsky
Peter Kirby wrote:outhouse wrote:Nothing in this text will change such. Even if it shows a more gnostic take.
rakovsky wrote:OK, can anyone please tell me what the fragment says?
I get the feeling that outhouse and rakovsky didn't really read the OP closely at all.
The "fragment" or "text" is simply a manuscript attestation of the Gospel of Mark, claimed to be early in date. Unpublished.
There is no direct support in the "text" for any weird readings of Mark (or so I reasonably assume).
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 get that ad 80 is an early date.
I don't know how this makes mythicists to get pushed to think anything different than they already did, except that the myth AKA metaphorical story about a metaphorical Jesus figure gets dated earlier than before.
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:18 pm
by robert j
Neither the timing nor location of the salvific death of Jesus Christ are made adequately clear in Paul’s letters --- hence the on-going debates.
However, I suspect such details were included during Paul’s evangelizing visit with each of his congregations. It’s hard to imagine that potential converts wouldn’t at least ask him such basic questions, if he hadn’t revealed the information. But apparently the topic didn’t become an issue that Paul felt the need to address in his occasional letters.
But regardless of what Paul originally taught, he was apparently rehabilitated --- to some level of success --- and brought into the fold by the early catholic traditions presented as a historical adventure tale in the Acts of the Apostles ---
Acts chapter 13 (ver. Berean Study Bible) ---
13After setting sail from Paphos, Paul and his companions came to Perga in Pamphylia, … where they entered the synagogue … 16Paul stood up, motioned with his hand, and began to speak …
[Paul gives a long-winded speech leading to …]
27The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning Him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. 28And though they found no ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have Him executed.
29When they had carried out all that was written about Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb. 30But God raised Him from the dead, 31and for many days He appeared to those who had accompanied Him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now His witnesses to our people.
32And now we proclaim to you the good news …
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:22 pm
by davidbrainerd
What if the mummy mask fragment of Mark contains no date marker info in the text (no mention of Pilate or other rulers) and the fragment was dated to the time of Alexander Jannaeus (circa 80 BC instead of 80 AD)? Then it would confirm the Talmud in having Jesus live at that time, circa 100 years before the present form of the gospels have it, and it would confirm that the present form of Mark is not the original form. Such speculation is as valid as any other when dealing with a mythical fragment.
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:53 pm
by rakovsky
davidbrainerd wrote:What if the mummy mask fragment of Mark contains no date marker info in the text (no mention of Pilate or other rulers) and the fragment was dated to the time of Alexander Jannaeus (circa 80 BC instead of 80 AD)? Then it would
be like finding a fragment of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address dated to the time of George Washington.........
and so we would want to retest it.
The Romans didn't even besiege Jerusalem until 63 BC...
And Herod Agrippa was not king of Judea in 80 BC...
And John the Baptist was not preaching in 80 BC...
All the known historical time markers in Mark's gospel would be drastically wrong.
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:48 pm
by davidbrainerd
rakovsky wrote:davidbrainerd wrote:What if the mummy mask fragment of Mark contains no date marker info in the text (no mention of Pilate or other rulers) and the fragment was dated to the time of Alexander Jannaeus (circa 80 BC instead of 80 AD)? Then it would
be like finding a fragment of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address dated to the time of George Washington.........
No. A better analogy would be if the British biographies of George Washington placed him 100 years before the American ones. Because the Talmud does place Jesus in the time of Alexander Jannaeus.
Re: Mummy Mask Manuscript Might Mean More Metaphorical Mark?
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:06 am
by lsayre
When will the text of 'Mark on a Mask' be published? Has any of it been published yet?