查看完整版本 : 怎樣理解在 The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark 的造假?

005U 2018-11-11 05:07 PM

怎樣理解在 The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark 的造假?

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

005U 2018-11-11 05:10 PM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

香港無神論貓姐] 2018-11-11 05:15 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]005U[/i] 於 2018-11-11 05:07 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490377607&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
關於論題,有版友認為 「事實上作者從文字中承認了耶穌歷史上的存在。」
其扭曲理性、人性的程度實在匪夷所思,現指出其漏洞如下:
1. 原文篤爆左聖經根本就係神話創作,用以對抗歷史真實。
2. 指出福音不斷加改,後期達到 (基督教)傳統的神經質squeamishness of later tradition。
3. 連個may 字都被屈成為作者承認歷史真實,簡直混淆視聽。
4. 最差劣的就是 ... [/quote]
閣下點解刻意迴避呢段?
Scholars routinely treat [color=Red]Mark’s identification of Jesus as a carpenter[/color] as [color=Red]historically reliable[/color] because there is no apparent reason for the evangelist to have concocted this information,

005U 2018-11-11 05:20 PM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

005U 2018-11-11 05:58 PM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

香港無神論貓姐] 2018-11-11 06:04 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]005U[/i] 於 2018-11-11 05:07 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490377607&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
關於論題,有版友認為 「事實上作者從文字中承認了耶穌歷史上的存在。」
其扭曲理性、人性的程度實在匪夷所思,現指出其漏洞如下:
1. 原文篤爆左聖經根本就係神話創作,用以[color=#ff0000]對抗歷史真實[/color]。
2. 指出福音不斷加改,後期達到 (基督教)傳統的神經質squeamishness of later tradition。
3. 連個may 字都被屈成為作者承認歷史真實,簡直混淆視聽。
4. 最差劣的就是 ... [/quote]
呢啲英文理解笑死人:smile_04:

005U 2018-11-11 06:16 PM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

香港無神論貓姐] 2018-11-11 07:08 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]005U[/i] 於 2018-11-11 05:20 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490378295&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
其實刻意迴避既係你,因此你們引文都從來唔敢引出全句給大家看,擺明就係隱瞞真相。
基督思維3.0 為求埋堆不擇手段

routinely treat 即係話基督學者慣性思維,完全不會分析思考。明白嗎? ... [/quote]
routinely treat,點解等於不會分析思考?當一樣嘢係學術共識、Dennis McDonald亦認同,就不是冇分析思考.
閣下 rouutinely treat 地球西轉係真,是否等於不會分析思考?:smile_04:

005U 2018-11-11 07:18 PM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

香港無神論貓姐] 2018-11-11 07:30 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]005U[/i] 於 2018-11-11 07:18 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490383853&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]

請不要繼續造假來盲辯,Dennis McDonald從無認同,並且明言不可靠。
閣下一方面承認未看過該書,一方面又話「Dennis McDonald 亦有提及」
十分虛假。已經檢舉
... [/quote]
呢啲冇得好檢舉嘅。我承認未看過該書、但從 McLone引述所以得知,有乜唔妥先?:smile_46:

cppig精神 2018-11-11 07:40 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]香港無神論貓姐][/i] 於 2018-11-11 05:15 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490378044&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]

閣下點解刻意迴避呢段?
Scholars routinely treat Mark’s identification of Jesus as a carpenter as historically reliable because there is no apparent reason for the evangelist to have concocted this infor ... [/quote][size=4][color=Blue]會員沒有迴避,只是閣下理解出現問題[/color][/size]

cppig精神 2018-11-11 07:43 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]香港無神論貓姐][/i] 於 2018-11-11 07:30 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490384356&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]

呢啲冇得好檢舉嘅。我承認未看過該書、但從 McLone引述所以得知,有乜唔妥先?:smile_46: [/quote][size=4][color=Blue]為何經常把某會員扯上關係?閣下是該會員的代言人嗎[/color][/size]

005U 2018-11-11 08:49 PM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

香港無神論貓姐] 2018-11-11 11:48 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]cppig精神[/i] 於 2018-11-11 07:43 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490384923&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
為何經常把某會員扯上關係?閣下是該會員的代言人嗎 [/quote]
我引用會員言論,係好平常嘅事而已,大驚小怪:smile_04:

香港無神論貓姐] 2018-11-11 11:49 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]005U[/i] 於 2018-11-11 08:49 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490388415&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]

呢啲己經好值得檢舉嘅。你承認未看過該書、只係從 McLone錯解的引述所以得知,
顯然就係以訛傳訛來當作絕對真理,以mclone作擋箭牌而死不認錯。
仲假扮問有乜唔妥先,基督思維2.0 ?:smile_46: ... [/quote]
我承認未看過該書、只係從 McLone引述所以得知,  佢有頁數和原文佐證,你哋冇、你哋就算有都係依靠 McLone:smile_04:

雷電超人 2018-11-12 04:35 AM

[quote]原帖由 [i]香港無神論貓姐][/i] 於 2018-11-11 05:15 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490378044&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]

閣下點解刻意迴避呢段?
Scholars routinely treat Mark’s identification of Jesus as a carpenter as historically reliable because there is no apparent reason for the evangelist to have concocted this infor ... [/quote]

[size=4]又斬头切尾形式的引证蓄意呃人?[/size]

[size=4]点解唔敢贴晒全段出嚟?[/size]
[size=4][/size]
「转载」
中文
麥克唐納指出: "學者們通常認為馬克認為耶穌是一個木匠是歷史上可靠的, 因為沒有明顯的理由讓福音傳教士編造了這個資訊.....。耶穌可能確實是一個木匠, 但 [奧德修斯也是如此];他建造了特洛伊木馬建造了自己的宮殿 荷馬不遺餘力地用雙手來說明奧德修斯的技巧, 以象徵他的智慧、遠見和聰明的足智多謀.....。對荷馬來說, 木工是智慧的隱喻。 馬克的情況正好相反, 最早的福音派可能是模仿荷馬的英雄, 使耶穌比奧德修斯更聰明、更強大。 耶穌的鄰居承認他是一個木匠, 但他的智慧和創造奇跡的能力遠遠超過他們所期望的, 即使是一個熟練的工匠。


在我解釋之前, 讓我先從以賽亞開始提供以下內容:


凡製造偶像的, 都算不了什麼, 他們珍愛的東西就毫無價值。那些願意為他們說話的人是盲目的;他們是無知的, 他們自己的恥辱。誰塑造了一個神, 鑄就了一個偶像, 這對他沒有任何好處?他和他的同類將蒙羞;工匠只不過是人。讓他們都走到一起, 站起來吧;他們將陷入恐怖和恥辱。鐵匠拿著工具, 在煤中與之合作;他用錘子塑造了一個偶像, 他用胳膊的力量鍛造了它。他餓了, 失去了他的力量;他不喝水, 變得暈倒了。木匠用一條線測量, 用標記做一個輪廓;他用鑿子把它弄明白, 用指南針做標記。他以人的形式, 在他一切的榮耀中塑造它, 使它住在神殿裡。他砍掉了雪松, 他創造了一個神, 他的偶像;他鞠躬到它和崇拜。他祈禱著說: "救救我;你是我的神. "他們什麼都不知道, 他們什麼也不懂;他們的眼睛被貼在身上, 所以看不見, 他們的思想閉上了, 所以他們無法理解...... 一顆被蒙蔽的心誤導了他;他不能自救, 也不能說: "我右手裡的這東西不是謊言嗎?"


當馬克告訴我們耶穌家鄉的人們對他生氣並侮辱他的時候, 他可能從來沒有打算用 "木匠" 這個詞 (希臘文, 泰克頓) 來描述他的行業, 而是把他作為一個被誤導和被蒙蔽、認識和不認識的人的隱喻描述什麼也沒有, 就像以賽亞的木匠一樣, 要蒙羞。 這是一個強大的諷刺, 幾乎可以肯定是馬克故意的。 這是上帝的兒子--馬克已經伸手去見那些有眼睛看和耳朵的人 (馬可福音 8:18, 25)--被那些最瞭解他的人指責為像崇拜虛假神、沒有眼睛看的人。

也許就在這時, 馬克把鎮民描述為對他們聽到的 "驚訝" 時, 讓他們諷刺。 "ekplesso" 一詞的另一個含義是 "震驚"。 畢竟, 他們只聽到耶穌在說什麼;沒有展示他的創造奇跡的力量, 讓他們見證, 所以他們不可能表達出真正的奇跡。 鎮民們沒有看到任何讓他們驚訝的東西, 但他們顯然聽到了耶穌的教導, 他們認為這些教導是 "令人震驚的"。

因此, 鎮民並沒有像麥克唐納所斷言的那樣, 承認耶穌的 "智慧和創造奇跡的能力"。 看來馬克讓他們做的正好相反;他們嘲笑他, 用 "木匠" 來提醒人們 "工匠, 他們只不過是人, 具有諷刺意味的是, 他們的眼睛" 被貼上了, 所以他們看不見, "就像耶穌說不會被允許進入天國的人一樣。  馬克顯然是在這裡讓人們諷刺的, 就像他在被捕後讓人們給他戴上了 "荊棘的冠冕....... 並] 向他喊話," 猶太人的國王萬歲! "(馬克 15:17-18) 馬克顯然想讓他的讀者知道耶穌家鄉的人和被捕時的人一樣認為耶穌是 "猶太人之王"。

總之, 馬克似乎打算在他的故事中的 "木匠", 以賽亞的遊手好閒的時尚, 一個誰會被羞辱-諷刺的是, 一個誰沒有眼睛看到。 麥克唐納指出, 馬克時代的作者經常混合來自幾個來源的材料, 他有可能在這裡爭辯說, 馬克希望他的讀者不僅想到以賽亞的木匠, 而且考慮奧德修斯。 然而, 這似乎不可思議的是, 馬克打算為他的讀者同時連接在他們的頭腦以賽亞的盲目和愚蠢的 "木匠" 和明智和英勇的一個在荷馬的奧德賽。
英文
MacDonald notes

"Scholars routinely treat Mark'sidentification of Jesus as a carpenter as historically reliable because thereis no apparent reason for the evangelist to have concocted thisinformation…..Jesus may have indeed been a carpenter, but [so was Odysseus]; hebuilt the Trojan horse and built his own palace.  Homer went to great lengths to illustrate Odysseus's skill withhis hands in order to symbolize his intelligence, foresight, and cleverresourcefulness…For Homer….carpentry was a metaphor for wisdom.  The opposite is the case in Mark, and theearliest evangelist may be emulating Homer's hero, making Jesus even wiser andmore powerful than Odysseus.  Jesus'neighbors recognized him as a carpenter, but his wisdom and ability to performmiracles far exceeded what they expected even from a skilledcraftsman."  (pages 18-19).


I attach a quite differentinterpretation to Mark's use of "carpenter."  Before I explain, let me first provide thefollowing from Isaiah:


[u]All who makeidols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who wouldspeak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame[/u]. Whoshapes a god and casts an idol, which can profit him nothing? He and his kindwill be put to shame; [u]craftsmen are nothing but men[/u]. Let them all cometogether and take their stand; they will be brought down to terror and infamy.The blacksmith takes a tool and works with it in the coals; he shapes an idolwith hammers, he forges it with the might of his arm. He gets hungry and loseshis strength; he drinks no water and grows faint. The[u] carpenter [/u]measureswith a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chiselsand marks it with compasses. He shapes it in the form of man, of man in all hisglory, that it may dwell in a shrine. He cut down cedars…he makes a god, hisidol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, "Save me;you are my god." [u]They know nothing, they understand nothing; their eyesare plastered over so they cannot see, and their minds closed so they cannotunderstand…a deluded heart misleads him[/u]; he cannot save himself, or say,"Is not this thing in my right hand a lie?"  (Isaiah 44:9-20)


When Mark told us the people of Jesus'hometown took offense at him and dishonored him, he may never intended the word"carpenter" (Greek, [i]tekton[/i]) be a description of his trade, butas a metaphoric description of one who is misguided and deluded, who knows andunderstands nothing, and is to be shamed, like Isaiah's carpenter.  This is powerful irony, almost certainlydeliberate on Mark’s part.  Here was theson of God--the man Mark had reach out to those who had eyes to see andears  (Mark 8:18, 25)--being accused bythose who knew him best of being like the one who worships false gods and whohas not eyes to see.

It may be then that Mark was having thetownspeople be sarcastic when he described them as being “amazed” at what theyheard.  An alternate meaning of the word[i]ekplesso[/i] is “shocked.”  They had,after all, only [u]heard[/u] what Jesus was saying; there was no display of hismiracle-making powers for them to witness, so it isn’t possible that they wereexpressing actual wonderment.  Thetownspeople hadn’t seen anything for them to be amazed at, but they evidentlyheard teachings from Jesus which they viewed as “shocking.”

Thus, the townspeople weren'trecognizing Jesus'  "wisdom andability to perform miracles," as MacDonald asserts.  It seems Mark was having them do just theopposite; they were ridiculing him, using "carpenter" to call to mind"craftsmen who were nothing but men, and whose eyes, ironically, “areplastered over so they cannot see,” just like the very persons Jesus saidwouldn’t be allowed into the kingdom of heaven.   Mark apparently is having the people use sarcasm here in muchthe same way he did when he had the people after the arrest put “a crown ofthorns…on him [and] call out to him, "Hail, king of the Jews!"  (Mark 15:17-18)  Mark seems clearly to have wanted his readers to know that thepeople in Jesus' hometown no more thought Jesus was wise than the people at thearrest thought Jesus was "king of the Jews."

In summary, Mark seems to have intendedthe "carpenter" in his story to call to mind Isaiah's fashioner ofidols, one who would be shamed--ironically, one who doesn't have eyes tosee.  MacDonald has noted that authorsof Mark's time often blended material from several sources, and it is possiblethat he might argue here that Mark wished for his readers to think not only ofIsaiah’s carpenter, but also of Odysseus. However, it seems inconceivable that Mark intended for his readerssimultaneously to connect in their minds Isaiah’s blind and foolish"carpenter" and the wise and heroic one in Homer’s [i]Odyssey[/i].

cppig精神 2018-11-12 06:35 AM

[quote]原帖由 [i]雷電超人[/i] 於 2018-11-12 04:35 AM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490405701&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]


又斬头切尾形式的引证蓄意呃人?

点解唔敢贴晒全段出嚟?

「转载」
中文
麥克唐納指出: "學者們通常認為馬克認為耶穌是一個木匠是歷史上可靠的, 因為沒有明顯的理由讓福音傳教士編造了這個資訊.....。耶穌可能確實是一個木匠, 但 [奧德修斯也是如此];他建造了特洛伊木馬建造了自己的宮殿 荷馬不遺餘力地用雙手來說明奧德修斯的技巧, 以象徵他的智慧、遠見和聰明的足智多謀.... ... [/quote][size=4][color=Blue]倒想看看那些自稱碩士,老師怎樣回應,[/color][/size][size=4][color=Blue]自稱碩士,老師的會員,請不要使用英文/俄羅斯文回應,[/color][/size]
[size=4][color=Blue]請使用中文,可以讓所有會員清楚內容[/color][/size]

McLoneV 2018-11-12 01:31 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]005U[/i] 於 2018-11-11 05:07 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490377607&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
關於論題,有版友認為 「事實上作者從文字中承認了耶穌歷史上的存在。」
其扭曲理性、人性的程度實在匪夷所思,現指出其漏洞如下:
1. 原文篤爆左聖經根本就係神話創作,用以對抗歷史真實。
2. 指出福音不斷加改,後期達到 (基督教)傳統的神經質squeamishness of later tradition。
3. 連個may 字都被屈成為作者承認歷史真實,簡直混淆視聽。
4. 最差劣的就是 ... [/quote]

好明顯你不能理解其原文,mythical heroes versus a historical hero是對比荷馬史詩(epics)和馬可福音(Gospel),作者Dennis MacDonald認為荷馬史詩的主角是神話英雄(mythical heroes),馬可福音的耶穌是歷史英雄(historical hero)。

另外"Scholars routinely treat Mark’s identification of Jesus as a carpenter as historically reliable because there is no apparent reason for the evangelist to have concocted this information, especially because it could have been embarrassing as illustrated by alterations in the other gospels and the squeamishness of later tradition" 是講馬太和路加福音用了馬可福音中耶穌是木匠的資料,而當時木匠的身份低微,所以馬太和路加更改了這資料。

Dennis MacDonald說Jesus may indeed have been a carpenter,他不是說耶穌可能不存在,而是說其他學者指出耶穌是木匠有其歷史可信性可能正確。所以前提是Dennis MacDonald認為耶穌歷史上存在,才能認為耶穌是木匠可能有其歷史可信性。

McLoneV 2018-11-12 01:34 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]005U[/i] 於 2018-11-11 05:10 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490377740&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
再看以下例子:
我在上帖己經證明這講法是極為欠缺分析和理解,
[b][u]唔知道原文其實就是藉著分析馬可福音的寫作手法 來指出歷史耶穌的虛偽性。[/u][/b]

事實上,談耶穌就是以馬可福音為依歸,
反過來說,談馬可福音是以耶穌為依歸。
若非如此,
其他錄記還有甚麼歷史性可言呢?
馬可福音還有甚價值讓人們去讀呢?
無論怎樣胡扯,
都只顯示基督思維2.0的粗糙、假學術的不濟! ... [/quote]
你的講法顯然不知馬可福音不是唯一耶穌的記錄,也顯然不知Dennis MacDonald說他認同某些資料不是來自荷馬史詩

你未睇過這本書就睇完先講囉~:lol

005U 2018-11-12 01:43 PM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

005U 2018-11-12 01:47 PM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

McLoneV 2018-11-12 01:53 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]005U[/i] 於 2018-11-11 05:20 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490378295&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
其實刻意迴避既係你,因此你們引文都從來唔敢引出全句給大家看,擺明就係隱瞞真相。
基督思維3.0 為求埋堆不擇手段

routinely treat 即係話基督學者慣性思維,完全不會分析思考。明白嗎? ... [/quote]
唔該你好好學下英文,routinely一字在這句是解作「一貫/慣性」,前部份「Scholars routinely treat Mark’s identification of Jesus as a carpenter as historically reliable」講學者認為耶穌是木匠有其歷史性,中間部份「because there is no apparent reason for the evangelist to have concocted this information」講福音書作者沒理由創造這資料,後部份「especially because it could have been embarrassing as illustrated by alterations in the other gospels and the squeamishness of later tradition」講後來的福音書要改變耶穌是木匠這資料。

整段句子先是學者的立論(耶穌是木匠有其歷史性),中間是原因(福音書作者沒理由創造這資料),後面是例子(後來的福音書要改變耶穌是木匠這資料)。

整段句子沒有你所講的「慣性思維」,如果是「慣性思維」,就不可能有原因及例子的提供,Dennis MacDonald也不會某程度上認同

McLoneV 2018-11-12 02:02 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]005U[/i] 於 2018-11-11 05:58 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490380139&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
貼埋過來,俾人睇下假聖經研究大話精係點樣盲辯。

哈哈...造假既係你。:smile_04:
唔止空口講白話,永遠唔爬帖,盲辯完全不負責任。
Does this mean the Jesus stories are not true?MacDonald sees Mark as enhancing the story of Jesus by having him emulate and s ... [/quote]
[b][u]你又歪曲了書中的意思,作者Dennis McDonald承認馬可福音不是可靠的史料,馬可福音以荷馬史詩作藍本,但作者沒有否定耶穌是虛構,他認為耶穌是歷史上存在。[/u][/b]

作者認為耶穌受苦不是來自荷馬史詩,保羅已有相似的想法(it was precisely because he suffered that he would be victorious and return as the Son of Man to punish his foes.  Paul had advocated a similar christology, but he did not write a gospel)。馬可福音要表達出這思想,除了由七十士譯本得到靈感,也源自Odysseus

McLoneV 2018-11-12 02:05 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]005U[/i] 於 2018-11-11 06:16 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490381033&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]

點都好過你憑空造假來盲辯,全無學術誠信。:smile_04:
[/quote]
事實上Dennis MacDonald以historical hero來形容耶穌,他認為耶穌是木匠有某程度上的歷史可信性,也認為耶穌受苦的情節不是來自荷馬史詩,因為保羅時已經存在

McLoneV 2018-11-12 02:06 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]005U[/i] 於 2018-11-11 07:18 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490383853&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]

請不要繼續造假來盲辯,Dennis McDonald從無認同,並且明言不可靠。
閣下一方面承認未看過該書,一方面又話「Dennis McDonald 亦有提及」
十分虛假。已經檢舉
... [/quote]

第7頁寫到:;P

More striking than the similarities between [b][u]this epics and the Gospel [/u][/b]are their differences: poetry versus prose, [b][u]mythical heroes versus a historical hero[/u][/b], many gods versus one god, and on and on.

McLoneV 2018-11-12 02:08 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]雷電超人[/i] 於 2018-11-12 04:35 AM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490405701&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]


又斬头切尾形式的引证蓄意呃人?

点解唔敢贴晒全段出嚟?

「转载」
中文
麥克唐納指出: "學者們通常認為馬克認為耶穌是一個木匠是歷史上可靠的, 因為沒有明顯的理由讓福音傳教士編造了這個資訊.....。耶穌可能確實是一個木匠, 但 [奧德修斯也是如此];他建造了特洛伊木馬建造了自己的宮殿 荷馬不遺餘力地用雙手來說明奧德修斯的技巧, 以象徵他的智慧、遠見和聰明的足智多謀.... ... [/quote]

你也看到原文說Dennis MacDonald某程度上認為耶穌是木匠有其歷史性

Scholars routinely treat Mark’s identification of Jesus as a carpenter as historically reliable because there is no apparent reason for the evangelist to have concocted this information, especially because it could have been embarrassing as illustrated by alterations in the other gospels and the squeamishness of later tradition.  Jesus may indeed have been a carpenter...

Odysseus 同樣是木匠。Homer筆下 Odysseus能造出Trojan horse和他的皇宮,以此表達出Odysseus的才能

For Homer, Odysseus’s handiwork reinforced his intelligence, resourcefulness, and wit

馬可福音筆下的耶穌的才能高於手藝精湛的木匠

Jesus’ neighbors recognized him as a carpenter, but his wisdom and ability to perform miracles far exceeded what they expected even from a skilled craftsman.


Dennis MacDonald沒有泛指耶穌的原型來自Odysseus,他只是說馬可福音作者以耶穌受苦及木匠的身份連繫上Odysseus,以此表達出耶穌高於Odysseus

005U 2018-11-12 02:08 PM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

McLoneV 2018-11-12 02:11 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]005U[/i] 於 2018-11-12 01:43 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490422202&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]

好明顯你不能理解其原文,
mythical heroes versus a historical hero是對抗荷馬史詩(epics)和馬可福音(Gospel)的不倫不類纂改,
作者Dennis MacDonald認為荷馬史詩的主角是神話英雄(mythical heroes),
而馬可福音的耶穌是倣照它偽裝成歷史英雄(historical hero)。

另外"Scholars ro ... [/quote]

整句是學者立論,學者提供的原因,學者提供的例子,之後Dennis MacDonald某程度上認同。
從整個意思,routinely是解作「一貫/慣性」,你連上文下理都不能解理~
唔怪得你話地球西轉;P

McLoneV 2018-11-12 02:13 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]005U[/i] 於 2018-11-12 01:47 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490422390&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]

你的講法顯然不知馬可福音是耶穌記錄的原型,
也顯然不知Dennis MacDonald沒有說他認為全部資料是來自荷馬史詩
你未明白這本書就學好英文先講囉~:lol ... [/quote]

書中哪文字說到「馬可福音是耶穌記錄的原型」?
說不出的話又不成立囉~;P

McLoneV 2018-11-12 02:16 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]005U[/i] 於 2018-11-12 02:08 PM 發表 [url=https://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=490423381&ptid=27843656][img]https://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]

唔該你好好學下英文,routinely一字在這句是解作「一貫/慣性」,
[b][u]係指基督學者[/u][/b]的蠢懶,貿然將歷史耶穌當真!


前部份「[b][u]Scholars[/u][/b] routinely treat Mark’s identification of Jesus as a carpenter as historically reliable」講學者認為耶穌是木匠有其歷史性,而你的中文又再刻意隱瞞 r ... [/quote]
原來你以為英文"Scholars"解作「基督學者」,唔該你好好學下英文;P
頁: [1] 2 3 4 5 6
查看完整版本: 怎樣理解在 The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark 的造假?