Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:39 pm
You persistently refuse to acknowledge Ignatius as providing the
terminus ad quem to the date range.
terminus ad quem to the date range.
Your source on the web for daily archaeology news!
https://archaeologica.org/forum/
Therefore, the anointed one in Greek is Christ or Khristos, and in Hebrew a word that sounds like Messiah.Christ is the English term for the Greek Χριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed".[1] In the (Greek) Septuagint version of the Old Testament, Khristós was used to translate the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ,) (Messiah), meaning "[one who is] anointed.
You are using as a premise to your argument for Mark being earlier than Ignatius's letter the fact that there had been the building of an infrastructure, of churches and bishops and deacons and deaconesses -
Therefore, the anointed one in Greek is Christ or Khristos, and in Hebrew a word that sounds like Messiah.
Not even a reasonable comparison Ish. the Jewish revolt actually happened, the resurrection not so much. There is nothing unreasonable at taking a reference to a known historical event as a date that marks the earliest that document could be written. Taking the reference to a fictional event as a solid date is simply dishonest.Ishtar wrote:Hippolytus wrote in his Refutation of All Heresies 5.7.20:
"[The Naassenes] speak...of a nature which is both hidden and revealed at the same time and which they call the thought-for kingdom of heaven which is in a human being. They transmit a tradition concerning this in the Gospel entitled "According to Thomas," which states expressly, "The one who seeks me will find me in children of seven years and older, for there, hidden in the fourteenth aeon, I am revealed."
The Nazarene sect are first mentioned in the Book of Acts chapter 24 verse 5 ... which I presume you're dating to 40 CE, as it describes the resurrection and so must have been written soon after it? Thus this dates the Nazerenes and the Gospel of Thomas to 40 CE.
Whaaaat?![]()
If you think that's crazy, go back and look at your original reasoning for the date of 70 CE for the Gospel of Mark.
By the way, John the Baptist was a Nazerene - and he was definitely before Christ.
There is nothing unreasonable at taking a reference to a known historical event as a date that marks the earliest that document could be written.
Ishtar wrote:And ... a further thought, more seriously.
Christianity was the religion that sounded the death knell for the gnostic and the shamanic.
It took it and hung, drew and quartered it on the cross of literalism, and then by denying the second initiation, tore the heart out of it.
Then it tried to sell it back to us as "God".
When the millions of followers of Christianity don't understand that, then none of us stand a chance of being able to
Peace.john wrote:
... get on with the
Beauty of the rest of the world,
Just as it happens, including today.
Which I believe was the entire
Worldview of the Shamanic.
Min - the whole thing is Christian chutzpah. Why do you look for historical truth in myth?Minimalist wrote:Therefore, the anointed one in Greek is Christ or Khristos, and in Hebrew a word that sounds like Messiah.
The Hebrew word is moshiach. Kings and high priests were anointed in ceremonies relating to their installation.
There is nothing but xtian chutzpah to assert that their boy jesus was ever anointed by anyone.
I'm not talking structures, Min. I'm talking about meeting places for people. The 'church' is also an expression for a group of Christians - it only later came to be the building they worshipped in.Minimalist wrote: Again....I have to stop you early on.
We have not a shred of evidence for any "churches" prior to the 4th century. A recent claim of a second century church in Jordan raised a storm of protest from archaeologists and died a quick death.
Of the Therapeutan Church, Eusebius says: “These statements of Philo seem to me to refer plainly and unquestionably to members of our Church.”It seems likely that Philo wrote this after listening to their exposition of the Holy Scriptures, and it is very probable that what he calls short works by their early writers were the gospels, the apostolic writings, and in all probability passages interpreting the old prophets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews and several others of Paul’s epistles.
...Eusebius has attested that the Therapeutan monks were Christians, many ages before the period assigned to the birth of Christ; and that the Diegesis and Gnomologue, from which the Evangelists compiled their gospels, were writings which for ages constituted the sacred scriptures of these Egyptian visionaries.”
Min, being on the one hand not a complete idiot, and on the other also having some knowledge about this subject, I wasn't making that assumption.Minimalist wrote:
One has to be careful not to attach our own preconceptions of what a "bishop" is to whatever the hell Ignatius was talking about.
In addition, you should realise that these church leaders in the early second century had among their ranks the likes of Valentinus, Marcion and Origen - all church leaders who read and taught the Jesus story as allegory, and who were later excommunicated. It was when they were excommunicated that we should take as our date for the beginning of the Literalist church, not when Ignatius was preaching Mark, because none of these splits had yet happened.
But on the seventh day they all come together as if to meet in a sacred assembly, and they sit down in order according to their ages with all becoming gravity, keeping their hands inside their garments, having their right hand between their chest and their dress, and the left hand down by their side, close to their flank; (31).
And then the eldest of them who has the most profound learning in their doctrines, comes forward and speaks with steadfast look and with steadfast voice, with great powers of reasoning, and great prudence, not making an exhibition of his oratorical powers like the rhetoricians of old, or the sophists of the present day, but investigating with great pains, and explaining with minute accuracy the precise meaning of the laws, which sits, not indeed at the tips of their ears, but penetrates through their hearing into the soul, and remains there lastingly.
And all the rest listen in silence to the praises which he bestows upon the law, showing their assent only by nods of the head, or the eager look of the eyes. (32)
And this common holy place to which they all come together on the seventh day is a twofold circuit, being separated partly into the apartment of the men, and partly into a chamber for the women, for women also, in accordance with the usual fashion there, form a part of the audience, having the same feelings of admiration as the men, and having adopted the same sect with equal deliberation and decision; (33)
And the wall which is between the houses rises from the ground three or four cubits upwards, like a battlement, and the upper portion rises upwards to the roof without any opening, on two accounts; first of all, in order that the modesty which is so becoming to the female sex may be preserved, and secondly, that the women may be easily able to comprehend what is said being seated within earshot, since there is then nothing which can possibly intercept the voice of him who is speaking.
Seeker, both you and Min have denigrated Mark above all others (quite rightly in my opinion) for all its historical and geographical inaccuracies. How then can you compare anything it says to anything that happened in the real world and then make that a basis for attestation? You are being inconsistent.seeker wrote:
Not even a reasonable comparison Ish. the Jewish revolt actually happened, the resurrection not so much. There is nothing unreasonable at taking a reference to a known historical event as a date that marks the earliest that document could be written. Taking the reference to a fictional event as a solid date is simply dishonest.
Ish, how does taking a mention of a historical event constitute an attestation? You are conflating two very different things. No one is saying Mark is true but in its wild flailing about it refers to an actual historical event. All that is doing is giving us a time frame.Ishtar wrote:
Seeker, both you and Min have denigrated Mark above all others (quite rightly in my opinion) for all its historical and geographical inaccuracies. How then can you compare anything it says to anything that happened in the real world and then make that a basis for attestation? You are being inconsistent.
However, even if we do accept that as historically accurate, still it only tells us that Mark was written after the event ... and not how long after the event as I showed with my examples of Gone With The Wind and War and Peace.
Its quite possible though I tend to think Q was just Mark in a sort of bare bones form. We already know Mark didn't reach a final form until quite late, I think that some editor just basically hung events around a few supposed sayings and attributes to build Mark into the form we see now. Matthew and Luke just copy and embellish Mark while John appears to have copied Mark while drunk.pattylt wrote:Question?
Do any of you think that a "Q" document ever existed? I recently read a lengthy discussion on another forum about the document and its possibility of existence. Personally, I agreed with one poster that there were probably several Q documents consisting of parables, mysteries etc. that later were incorporated into the Mark gospel. This would actually allow Mark to have a later construction but seem to be dated from much earlier in time. The discussion also consisted of the idea that Mark HAD to be written at a later date to remove the Mysteries section while retaining the parables and teachings of the mythological Jesus to make him real.
Has it never occurred to you that Mark could have easily been a Gnostic gospel early on, edited by later literalists.Ishtar wrote: But even if we treat Origen as a one-off, it still tells us that Gnostic Christianity and Literalist Christianity were not separate before 143 CE. That should be your terminus ad quem.
Abso - freakin' - lootely!seeker wrote:Has it never occurred to you that Mark could have easily been a Gnostic gospel early on, edited by later literalists.Ishtar wrote: But even if we treat Origen as a one-off, it still tells us that Gnostic Christianity and Literalist Christianity were not separate before 143 CE. That should be your terminus ad quem.