Commentary on Q and Mark
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-10-2015, 10:36 AM (This post was last modified: 24-10-2015 10:54 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(24-10-2015 07:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 08:42 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I have been Jewish all my life, and I’ve been orthodox for the majority of my adult life.

Yabut, why? Consider

Why have you made your life unnecessarily difficult? Huh

If she were a dude I'd say for the cool ass hat and hair tassels.

[Image: jew.png]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
24-10-2015, 05:19 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
Hi everyone, I only just discovered this thread.

I'm pleased that you are reading the debate!

Sometimes I post and I wonder whether anybody is actually reading it....it's nice to know you are.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Mark Fulton's post
24-10-2015, 05:26 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(21-10-2015 06:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 05:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I expect Q to smarmily deny any evidence and do a lot of unconvincing hand-waving, biased interpretations, and completely miss any point while declaring victory.

He was going around declaring victory in the thread leading up to this, based on Mark not going along with trying to disprove god's existence.

All he's been doing is boasting how great a debater he is, yeah he's definitely a master-bater. Rolleyes

Uhm, to be fair to Q, Mark doesn't particularly offer evidence. If we were to have Mark cite the passages and verses, he use to draw most of his wild inferences, it would require a great deal of making things up, as opposed to what can reasonably be deduced from those passages, such Jesus's animosity to Roman and Jews, Paul disputes with the disciples of Jesus being anything more than in regards to Jewish Ritual laws, etc...

The only reason it appears that many folks vouche for Mark's interpretation here, is because they like the sound of it, not because it's the one strongly supported by the evidence.

Hi Tomasia.

I'll be happy to provide evidence for my "wild inferences."

Please state clearly what you think one or two of them are, and let's discuss.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 05:31 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(21-10-2015 06:32 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @Tomasia

You might have missed those verse, he isually puts them in itallic. There is around 5 or 6 verses and passages directly quoted or retranscripted by Mark in each and every single of his posts. Though, I would complain that he seems to use the Bible to make an hisorical argument instead of a religious one. The Bible cannot be use for such a thing since it's a heavily eddited documents for political and cultural reasons. I am eager to see the rest of his argument and see how it will lead us to his conclusion.

Hi.

Though, I would complain that he seems to use the Bible to make an hisorical argument instead of a religious one.

When talking about Paul, there is not much else to go on the other than what's in the Bible. I will do my best to include extra biblical information. Don't forget that the genuine Pauline letters are a primary source, although with the obvious reservations that they have been interpolated and edited.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 05:33 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(23-10-2015 08:42 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 07:21 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Okay, so you’re NOT Jewish. I get it now. Because I’m not here to debate Judaism with you, but you don’t know the first thing about it, apparently. A Jew who becomes a Christian is entitled to fully participate in all religious and ceremonial aspects of Judaism from Bar Mitzvah to Jewish burial, and there are many Messianics, however discreet, in synagogues of all stripes today. Your NTS regarding “true Jews” is offensive to both traditional and Messianic Jews, as well as the rules of logic. Please stop!

I have been Jewish all my life, and I’ve been orthodox for the majority of my adult life. I’ve moved around and have lived in cities with dense Jewish populations. I’m also a shul-hopper, so I’ve gotten around the circuit. Never once have I met a messianic in our midst, and I’ve never met anyone who is even confused or iffy about the subject of Jesus. I’ve never met them in Reformed synagogues, I’ve never met them in Conservative, Reconstructionist, Orthodox or Chassidic synagogues.

I've heard this claim before, but I don't know where these people are. I'd be really interested in meeting a Messianic Jew with an authentic Orthodox background (who does not suffer from an obvious personality disorder), but no one seems to actually know any.

Thanks for this. I had strongly suspected what you just said, but I didn't really feel qualified enough to say it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
24-10-2015, 05:43 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(23-10-2015 02:26 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 01:25 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So in post 21 Mark quotes Tertullian absolutely lambasting the idea that Paul was anything but a poser. Let's see if Qlueless does anything but his normal hand-waving obfuscation.

Q has already addressed that point. He claims that Tertullian is talking about Marcion's idea of Paul rather than the actual Paul, and that other writings of Tertullian are more favorable to Paul. I don't know enough to take part in that argument.

However, regardless of how that turns out, I thought Tertullian/Mark made one very good point which Q did not address: Jesus had already appointed 12 Apostles to "spread the Good News". Why was there any need for another one who had never even met Jesus? It looks very much as if Paul just appointed himself.

Ha ha. Yes.

Consider this from Paul's perspective. He probably knew next to nothing about a Jesus, other than there was a character one to two decades earlier who had been knocked off by the Romans. Paul knew James...this character's brother, but nothing else. No miracles, no preaching, no 12 disciples. "Jeebus" hadn't been invented (ie created) in the gospels yet.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 08:19 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(24-10-2015 07:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 08:42 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I have been Jewish all my life, and I’ve been orthodox for the majority of my adult life.

Yabut, why? Consider

Why have you made your life unnecessarily difficult? Huh

Why would I want to live my life like a non-Jew?

I like my lifestyle. It fits me nicely and for that reason I choose to maintain it. If it didn't work for me, I wouldn't do it anymore. I think it's important to mention that no one makes me do this. My family is secular, so I'm under no social or family pressure to live like this. I simply like it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
24-10-2015, 08:24 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(24-10-2015 10:36 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(24-10-2015 07:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  Yabut, why? Consider

Why have you made your life unnecessarily difficult? Huh

If she were a dude I'd say for the cool ass hat and hair tassels.

[Image: jew.png]

I do know a lot of people who look like this.... but just for the record, I am a lot less observant than this couple is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
24-10-2015, 08:42 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(24-10-2015 05:33 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 08:42 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I have been Jewish all my life, and I’ve been orthodox for the majority of my adult life. I’ve moved around and have lived in cities with dense Jewish populations. I’m also a shul-hopper, so I’ve gotten around the circuit. Never once have I met a messianic in our midst, and I’ve never met anyone who is even confused or iffy about the subject of Jesus. I’ve never met them in Reformed synagogues, I’ve never met them in Conservative, Reconstructionist, Orthodox or Chassidic synagogues.

I've heard this claim before, but I don't know where these people are. I'd be really interested in meeting a Messianic Jew with an authentic Orthodox background (who does not suffer from an obvious personality disorder), but no one seems to actually know any.

Thanks for this. I had strongly suspected what you just said, but I didn't really feel qualified enough to say it.

I've been following your posts since I wandered onto this forum. From what I've seen, you're more on the mark about Judaism than any Christian I've ever met. I find it very impressive, and it shows that you've done your homework. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
24-10-2015, 08:53 PM
RE: Commentary on Q and Mark
(24-10-2015 05:31 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 06:32 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @Tomasia

You might have missed those verse, he isually puts them in itallic. There is around 5 or 6 verses and passages directly quoted or retranscripted by Mark in each and every single of his posts. Though, I would complain that he seems to use the Bible to make an hisorical argument instead of a religious one. The Bible cannot be use for such a thing since it's a heavily eddited documents for political and cultural reasons. I am eager to see the rest of his argument and see how it will lead us to his conclusion.

Hi.

Though, I would complain that he seems to use the Bible to make an hisorical argument instead of a religious one.

When talking about Paul, there is not much else to go on the other than what's in the Bible. I will do my best to include extra biblical information. Don't forget that the genuine Pauline letters are a primary source, although with the obvious reservations that they have been interpolated and edited.

The reason historians discart the Bible as a primary source to study the first century history (even early Christian history) is because of those editing. We have almost no clue about what was edited and what was not. All researchs based mostly if not only with the Bible for first century primary source can be waved off as insufficently supported to established with reasonable certainty a historical thesis. Though your hypothesis is very interesting and quite consistent, I think it lack proper support to be commonly accepted. I would like to give you chance, but you are facing an uphill battle.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: