The Mystery Gospel of Mark

Religion is a very big industry.

 

I wonder what you will say when those hundred pound hailstones rain down on your noggin.

 

Stan, why do YOU think some say Mark was written about AD70?
I have my suspicions about this.
Luke quotes Mark, and Luke was gone about AD66 when he took
that last voyage to Rome with Paul.

 

If you believe that Jesus came to be the Messiah, and left His disciples and
others to record the Gospels - then what we read is what God wants us to
read.
If there's no God in it all then arguing about who wrote what is a moot point.

 

I think you'll find it says 'Obedience is better than sacrifice' In other words if you obey you won't need to sacrifice. If you didn't obey then sacrifice was necessary.

Again I say we don't really know what Jesus taught other than Judaism. Words are put into his mouth by gospel writers that a Jew like Jesus would never say. Had he said them he would have been rejected by the disciples and the people. To say he was THE Son of God was blasphemy. He probably said he was A son of God - as were all the Jews according to the OT. He would never have declared a vicarious sacrifice. It was against Jewish belief. All men were responsible for their own sin. No such belief as original sin existed.

Christianity, like all religions, is man made.

 

Been reading various reports of the UK election and this Jeremy Corbyn guy.
He's a hero, a villain, a Marxist, a free thinker, a kind man, an anti-Semite etc.
I have come to the conclusion there is no such person as Jeremy Corbyn.

 

And then the whole thing was completely rewritten by Emperor Honorius in the 4th Century, after which he gathered up and burned all the other copies. This was repeated several times over the next 2000 years, though without the burning mostly. It's what we say it is now.

 

I can assure you there is. I think he is a man of strong views and that gets up the nose of those who disagree with him. But then it happens everywhere.

 

Yes. But even secular academics disagree with you. Secular academics is not a very big industry. You should ask yourself why you are the only one pushing this conspiracy theory.

 

Interesting. I've never found Honorious did anything but hide, depending on his father-in-law for protection. Until he had him killed for wrongly assuming treason. He was the weakest Emperor in the Roman Period.

Interested to know where your facts come from. Most of the acts of Honorious, to do with the Church. maintain its status. Only books of the 'Gentiles' and heathen books are destroyed. Nothing about the Bible.

 

That's a warning to be carefull, bu it doesn't invalidate religion.

 

I will bow to your obviously superior knowledge, I was told he was in charge of one or another of the first Councils that issued an "authoritative" Bible and then burned all the others it could find.

 

First 3 Ecumenical Councils. Council of Nicea 325 when Constantine commissioned the Bibles.
Council of Constantinople381 was under Theodosius I.No Western Bishops attended
Council of Ephesus 431 Theodosius II.
There were later Ecumenical councils from 450 onwards. 2 more at Constantinople. Another at Ephesus and one a Chalcedon.
Other councils occurred for various reasons

 

Yes, but like Jesus, the accounts I read are contradictory, therefore
there is no Jeremy Corbyn. Doesn't make sense, does it?

ps he's a man who did a huge amount of damage to the Labour
Party - him and that Momentum group - straight out of the Marxist
Central Casting and the Frankfurt School

 

Maybe most people have a vested interest in maintaining the religious fairy tales for their own selfish reasons. Would you be able to cope if you didn't believe in your favorite ethnocentric ancient Middle Eastern religious fairy tale? I doubt it. So maybe the secular academics have the same problem. I wonder if religions would die out if women stopped brainwashing their kids to believe in their delusions?

 

Maybe most people have no interest in maintaining religious fairy tales. Certainly not Secular academics.

 

You say he would have been rejected if he taught what the gospels say ? I dont think so. That they had difficulty understanding him is because some of what he was saying was concontrary to some jewish traditional beliefs.

The Jews had some things wrong and he was clearing up where they were wrong. Imo.

This revelation helped to get him killed so serious was the offenses .Because he went against ingrained beliefs protected by the religious class.

 

The Jews knew exactly what he was saying. If he had taught the idea of a vicarious sacrifice he would have been called mad. Jews are responsible for their own sins. Repentance is a thing between the individual and Jahweh. Had he said he was 'The Son of God' even the disciples would have denied him. Their belief - and that of the Religious hierarchy was שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד׃) "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one" Deuternomy, 6.

Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai e-chad Baruch sheim k’vod Mal-chu-to, l’olam va-ed Translated. 'Pay attention Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One Praised be His name, whose glorious kingdom is forever and ever'

His baptism was a Jewish one of repentance - the dove an addition to make him divine. His temptation was in line with Jewish teaching. Satan, God's servant, was given the 'job' of testing mens faith. Jesus preached Moses law - with the theme of mercy, not judgement. The people understood very well the impositions placed on them by Pharisaic additions/interpretation of Moses Laws. Notice, it's the Pharisees that are the focus of Jesus tirade in Matthew 23 and most of his conjtacts are with them. The Sadducees did not recognise the Pharisaic 'updating' of Moses Law, but stuck to its teachings. Neither did they believe in resurrection - Matthew 22.

If he went against the ingrained beliefs why did the people welcome him so often, and the Pharisees hate him. Most of the people ignored many of the Pharisaic teachings in their daily life. To follow them would have been impossible.

There was no crown shouting for his crucifixion. Perhaps a paid mob of Temple Guards. This was Passover time with all its religious ritual. The people would have been too involved elsewhere

The trial of Jesus was a 'put-up job'. They had to rely on perjured witnesses. Pilate found no reason for putting Jesus to death. Only his cruel nature and fear of Rome was enough.

 

We will just disagree on this issue for he started out saying he was the son of man and later on it became clear he was saying that he that sees him is seeing the father . This was rejected by the religious authority and his claims were against jewish beliefs . Indeed such claims were worthy of death!

This is very clear in the gospels If the jews were already practicing what he revealed to them, the way of salvation there would be no need for him to preach it.

The Jews believed god could not live in man. Christ taught that he could and that this is the key to salvation but only by a rebirth in consciousness. That is clear according to his teaching.

These Jews had no idea about the rebirth Christ taught. Nor that the kingdom is to be found in consciousness. God was out there as well as his kkingdom and not inside of man.

You must credit the teachings of Christ to man in order to travel that road you laid out. Whereas I think his words are the only significant thing in the NT.

He was not killed because he was teaching accepted Jewish doctrine but because he wasnt . He challenged the authority of the official beliefs.

 

The reason is that he talks about the destruction of the temple, Mark 14:58. And I have my doubts too.

 

Good points that you made. A very few scholars believe that Mathew was written first. I read some material about a copy of Mathew written in Hebrew.

 

Matt is quite a mystery - we don't know who authored it - Adding the physical resurrection story in particular - the "Smoking Gun" for the resurrections - tales of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death.

Paul does not know of any "physical resurrection" stories. For sure he would have said something - Paul likens the stories of appearances of Jesus to his vision - like seeing the Virgin Mary in the clouds.

So if Mark is dated around 60 AD - Matt (80-100) - John (100-120)

Clement - leader of the Church - sometimes called the first Pope - 95-100 AD - knows naught of any physical resurrection stories. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html Start at verse 24 if interested.

Clement believes in the Resurrection - and he is trying to convince the Church in Corinth - that the resurrection promise is real. Says the resurrection is shown to use in the change of seasons (death and rebirth ) talks about the Pheonix in Egypt - where a bird is reborn from the ashes. No mention of - "and our lord came back to us in the flesh after death".

Either Clement was not aware of Matt, Matt was not yet written (suggesting a dating at the later end) or these stories did not exist in the original Matt.

I am guessing #3.

 

Okay, so this is the circular "argument"
Jesus speaks of the destruction of the temple and Israel in general.
This sort-of-happened in AD70.
Not fully happened - sort-of-happened.
Israel was still there after that war - it was finished as a nation only
in about AD135 after the third war, the Bar Kochbar revolt.

So our modern scribes say "Well, Jesus spoke of the destruction of
the temple, and that happened in AD70, and seeing how Jesus can't
see the future because it hasn't happened - we say that these temple
destruction verses are a handy date for when this was written.

Only Daniel spoke of the destruction of the temple and the Messiah
too. And people like Jacob in Egypt late Bronze Age alluded to all
this as well.

 

In 1st Corinthians Paul mentions the people who Jesus appeared
to. From elsewhere we understand these appearances were not
visionary as they were with Paul.