modern scholarship tells us that some parts of the gospel are indeed eye witness accounts.

whose?

(and if you say 'john' then you need to qualify which 'john').

John the son of Zebedee

John 21

John 19

[This message has been edited by vice (edited 07-06-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by vice:

John the son of Zebedee

John 21

John 19





no. try reading the bloody book.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:



no. try reading the bloody book.

Erm, John was at Jesus' crucifixion. I would guess that makes it eyewitness.

quote:Originally posted by vice:

Erm, John was at Jesus' crucifixion. I would guess that makes it eyewitness.

he was??? wow all those years of study and i missed that[/sarcasm]. like i said ,read the book and stop making assumptions.

John Mark

Mark 14:51

Modern scholars accept that the "young man" was none other than Mark himself. Which means that he was writing about events that he witnessed himself.

quote:Originally posted by aetherdweller:

John Mark

Mark 14:51

Modern scholars accept that the "young man" was none other than Mark himself. Which means that he was writing about events that he witnessed himself.





excellent point (although wrong,i think). i'll answer fully once the men have been to install the Sat TV and i've had enough coffee!

quote:Originally posted by aetherdweller:

John Mark

Mark 14:51

Modern scholars accept that the "young man" was none other than Mark himself. Which means that he was writing about events that he witnessed himself.





okies (4 coffee's and a phone call from the sat.engineer later),

when i said above that i thought you were wrong i expressed myself badly.

right man,wrong name

The man you are refering to is probably the same one i contend is the author of or original source for the gospel of John.

However, there is the usual gospel confusion about names here. I was looking for a different name..the one John's Gospel gives us for him.

i'm assuming you've read Morton/know this o this but for those who haven't i'll quote Clement.

quote:"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him," and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only,

"And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them."

Actually I hadn't heard of Morton or Clement's letter until now. Very interesting stuff but it'll take awhile to wade through and digest it.

And I withdraw my suggestion of John Mark after some of my reading. Even if he is the author, which can be disputed, the same tradition that gives him authorship says that he just wrote down stuff that Peter told him.

Four cups of coffee in an hour? Not bad.

well i think you have the right man....just the 'wrong' name.

i'm pretty sure the 'beloved disciple' aka john was the young man who ran naked ...

care to take a guess at his name in St.John's Gospel?

and 4 mugs of coffee in an hour is nowhere near my record....

My current candidate is Lazarus.

John 11:1 - Lazarus is introduced as "a certain man"

Mark 14:51 -"A certain young man"

There are connections in the "beloved disciple" clue too.

I'd do some more study but I have to go and work on an ailing internal combustion engine... but that's a topic for another forum.

quote:Originally posted by aetherdweller:

My current candidate is Lazarus.

John 11:1 - Lazarus is introduced as "a certain man"

Mark 14:51 -"A certain young man"

There are connections in the "beloved disciple" clue too.

I'd do some more study but I have to go and work on an ailing internal combustion engine... but that's a topic for another forum.

yep ,all the evidence points to lazarus . although some scholars have made a convincing case for judas iscariot.

for those not convinced of it probably being Lazarus ...take a look at 21:20 + ....which suddenly makes a whole of sense!

to the best of my knowledge much of the bible was written/compiled between 500 and 700 A.D.

quote:Originally posted by Lou Reed:

to the best of my knowledge much of the bible was written/compiled between 500 and 700 A.D.

i'd love to see some sources/linkys for that one.[/sarcasm]

are you talking about the whole bible? or did you mean the NT?

i enjoy these little quicky quizzes, Jack.

this one i had never seen (commentaries on), though. thanks, pretty interesting.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

i enjoy these little quicky quizzes, Jack.

this one i had never seen (commentaries on), though. thanks, pretty interesting.

thanks. i find it kinda interesting to see the answers i get. and if helps someone to view the bible in a new light, to see it not as a piece of fiction or a fairy tale but as an historical document and a fairly reliable factual account then i think that's a good thing.



[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

thanks. i find it kinda interesting to see the answers i get. and if helps someone to view the bible in a new light, to see it not as a piece of fiction or a fairy tale but as an historical document and a fairly reliable factual account then i think that's a good thing.

Do other (non-biblical) ancient texts have as much difficulty...or contexual possiblities, as the Bible?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Do other (non-biblical) ancient texts have as much difficulty...or contexual possiblities, as the Bible?



yes.

even not so ancient ones!

actually a good example is fairy tales.

here's a question (just to illustrate)

how old were the children of hamelin? the ones who followed the pied piper?

....

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

here's a question (just to illustrate)

how old were the children of hamelin? the ones who followed the pied piper?

i remember the story/fairy tale, but i dont recall it so well as to have a guess... and instead of looking for a coy, i'll just let you do what your intention was... to illustrate.

Gotta go and light the grill... we're having BBQ ribs for dinner..yumm

Just a quick thought/question.

Was the Pied Piper story a story about the childrens crusade?

I've thought for a long time that the fairy tales might have been stories discribing some actual events... for instance, peter, peter pumpkin eater..may have been about some guy pissed that his wife was fooling around, so he killed her and chopped up her body and stuffed it in pumpkins...

or something like that.. it's just a thought that i've had, but had no idea how to even begin to check out my theory about fairy tales...

OK, am going to light the grill.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

i remember the story/fairy tale, but i dont recall it so well as to have a guess... and instead of looking for a coy, i'll just let you do what your intention was... to illustrate.

Gotta go and light the grill... we're having BBQ ribs for dinner..yumm

yeah its coffee time again for me too.

but went i went for my last cup about 20 minutes ago i asked the wife 'wo sind die Kinder?' (ie where are the kids).

i was refering to a 14 and 16 year old .

when your mother says 'my kids are coming for dinner tomorrow' she means you at age whatever.

so when the parents of Hamelin lamented 'the children are gone' they could have been refering to teenagers.

from childhood memories we assume that the children in the fairy tale were but tots.

yet when you read it carefully it's clear that the children were infact teenagers.

BTW they did indeed go through the Copper Mountain ! just like we'd say 'a road runs through the mountains'. (in german 'durch' has both these meanings).

[/the sermon]

sorry ...i get very 'school teacher' like when the caffeine level sinks...

have a great BBQ



edit. oo00ps! i didn't answer your question. yes it seems to refer to both the childrens crusade and Bishop Otto's land grab in Bohemia ( remember the ending of the story that tells us that 'even to this day there are people in bohemia who speak german with a hamelin accent and claim to be decendants of the children').

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-17-2005).]

and yes (our posts have crossed) most fairy tales are infact highly accurate folk memories.

unfortunately the brothers grimm did a lot of damage to some of them to make them more acceptable.

remember Rapunzel?

how does she get caught?

she asks the witch 'why you weigh more than the prince when you climb up my hair'?

awww come on pleaaaase! not even a medieval virgin isolated in a tower is gonna be that fuckin stupid as to give the game away.

no, in the original Rapunzel says/asks the witch

" why is my belly getting bigger ?"

which is kinda self explanatory..

AND NOW IT REALLY IS COFFEE TIME!!!111



ps. one more

quote: along came a man who spied her, and sat down beside her, and frightened lill miss muffat away !

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

i'd love to see some sources/linkys for that one.[/sarcasm]

are you talking about the whole bible? or did you mean the NT?



i know this site is kinda dodgy but -

http://customers.i-is.com/mbc/originimpbib.htm



this one z a bit better - http://www.allabouttruth.org/when-was-the-bible-written-faq.htm

though is doesnt matter when it was written.

wot i ment by 500 - 700 a d



woz dat it was translated for the sake of christianity, etc,etc , blah blah blah

Lou, your first link gives the usual timeline for the bible!

and i think many would dispute this claim: quote:The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Chaldean. Since the structure of these languages is basically simple, they can be translated into almost any language fairly easily

i'll check the 2nd link now

quote:Originally posted by Lou Reed:

wot i ment by 500 - 700 a d



woz dat it was translated for the sake of christianity, etc,etc , blah blah blah

ahh right, yes that would make more sense. and yes we know that a lot of 'mistranslating' was done around that time (and onwards).

luckily the techniques of modern scholarship are good enough to spot most of these 'forgeries' .

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-17-2005).]

I love these quizzes, too. They're very interesting. Keep that caffeine low, I love the school teacher side. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by malaria:

I love these quizzes, too. They're very interesting. Keep that caffeine low, I love the school teacher side. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

thanx but please don't make the mistake of thinking i actually know what i'm talkng about:P

Don't worry, I check everything anyway http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif).

quote:Originally posted by malaria:

Don't worry, I check everything anyway http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif).

damn right ! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him," and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only,

"And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them."



Jack are you quoting that dude (whose name escapes me) that wrote that book (whose name also escapes me) about Secret Mark?

I think i breifly flipped through it once in my heady evangelical days... i have to say that i was impressed that he was to extrapolate a whole book out of a handful of fragments preserved in quotations of quotations. And then create a Yeshua that was funky drug dealing nomadic cleric.

Has there been anymore since to support secret mark?

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Jack are you quoting that dude (whose name escapes me) that wrote that book (whose name also escapes me) about Secret Mark?

I think i breifly flipped through it once in my heady evangelical days... i have to say that i was impressed that he was to extrapolate a whole book out of a handful of fragments preserved in quotations of quotations. And then create a Yeshua that was funky drug dealing nomadic cleric.

Has there been anymore since to support secret mark?



actually i was quoting Clement!. but yes i have read Morton's "Secret Gospel Of Mark" and i agree with you to a degree. The evidence he quotes/discovered is fascinating but i doubt all his conclusions found wide support among his academic colleagues.