The Mystery Gospel of Mark

As the apostles spread the good news they were reciting what Christ taught. And the words of Christ were many. They must have written them down as he was teaching.

Unless what he taught and died to teach was irrelevant !

Afterall what he taught was the word of God. And that would be of great importance .

Imo the blood sacrifice idea was an invention that came later for he never taught it. But it became the center piece of later Christianity . In the tradition of the age old animal sacrifice. Imo his death saves no one. Seeking and finding the kingdom within that creates the rebirth is what saves the individual . That is his teaching.

 

I am not interested in looking at biased research and information.

 

The consensus that Mark is the earliest is very strong. However, the other side of the argument providing good reasons.

 

They stood on the mount with writing implements and wrote down the Sermon on the Mount as he spoke? You've tried writing Aramaic at speed.?
The blood sacrifice was Pauls adaptation of the Passover lamb. Of course, the Passover/Pascal lamb was never meant to absolve anyone from sin, but to shield them from the angel of death.
What Jesus taught was OT scripture with a few additions by gospel writers to make him their Messiah. His Baptism, supposed temptation, many parables were related to Israel's relationship with Jahweh in the OT. His life was lived as a Jewish 'evangelist' who followed Judaism - but ignored the ridiculous 'rules' of the religious hypocritical Priesthood.
Jesus was a human Jewish preacher. The writer of Matthews Gospel Nativity story is simply that - a story, misusing OT scripture. Luke joins the farce by ignoring so many Jewish and Roman laws regarding censuses. When was he born? When did he die? Even the trial and crucifixion story is a mix of facts and supposed 'facts'.

 

They could have wrote it down later with 11 apostles collectively contributing from memory. For if they believed he was speaking what god was speaking his teachings would have great importance and the need to record them down. This is just common sense.

No doubt jesus was a jew. And he came with good news in regards to salvation . And it was foreign to the Jews, the religious authority . For like islam god was some where else totally separate from man and could never abide in man. His claims were heresy and worthy of death. He quoted scripture that said we could all be sons of god. His teaching then told man how this is possible. And never was his blood sacrifice mentioned but what one must personally do...skin in the game. He took them into mysticism. Seeking the kingdom within mans consciousness. Knocking on a metaphorical door. TThat involved a rebirth of consciousness. A revolution in consciousness.

Something went wrong after his death and the means of salvation was corrupted and changed. Looks like Paul is responsible. So imo this was the ccreation of pauline Christianity and it beat out the Christianity of Christ .

His death and magic blood has nothing to do with salvation . And it was the people who believed in blood salvation who committed the evil acts of the RCC that was the organized religion .

People who sought and found the kingdom and rebirth would not have given us the known history of the church and all that bad fruit.

If the Christianity that was based on the good news ever took off it did not survive . To my knowledge. Although the gnostics may have been closer to it.

 

Cool indeed.

It would be interesting if there existed a copy of these three books with the lines color coded to match that first diagram.

The whole idea of not knowing who wrote these books, the very foundation of Christianity, hits me as disturbing.

It goes hand in hand with the practice of extracting one verse from complex context and making claims about its breadth and depth of meaning.

 

That stretches credulity to its limits. The sermon on the mount was written 4-5 decades later by the writer of Matthews gospel - whoever that was.

The idea that Jesus came with the good news of salvation is Christian teaching from additions by early followers of Jesus. Jesus came unto his own, Words from his own mouth. Not the gentiles. His only concern was to bring the people of Yahweh back to Yahweh. He did not quote scripture that said we could all be sons of god. He quoted scripture that said the Jews were sons of god. . The OT is all about the Jews - nothing about Jesus as a messiah.
He didn't take anyone disciple into mysticism. The Jews knew what he was talking about. When questioned by the disciples why he spoke in parables he told them it was because they knew the parables and could understand what he was saying. Had he spoken of a vicarious sacrifice the disciples would have left him. Had he meant literally 'His body and blood' at the last supper they would have left. When he told them to 'put up their swords' in the Garden of Gethsemane - they did leave him. They expected him to fight as their Messiah was supposed to do.

Christian teaching has perverted the Jewish Tanakh for its own ends. It has assumed many things. We don't actually know what type of cross Jesus was crucified on. The birthplace of Jesus - Church of the Nativity - was built over a cave which some early church father in the 2nd century decided was Jesus birthplace. .

Gnosticism has also twisted what was a simple message from Jesus. He wanted the Jews to return to Yahweh. When he went against the hypocrisy (Matthew 23) of the religious hierarchy he suffered the ultimate penalty. Interestingly the Jews were so desperate to get rid of him they even ignored the fact that crucifixion was not acceptable to them, being considered too cruel. Stoning was the preferred method.

Christianity is certainly Pauline and Paul uses much Greek philosophy - taught him be Gamaliel - to win over the Greeks. .

 

The sermon is recorded in Matthew by an unknown. It was drawn from another aand older source.

The apostles must hsve recotded god's words given the Jewish tradition of writing down such things.

The dating of the gospels is sketchy. Lots of assumption involved. We dont know how many writings of Christ were destroyed. . NOT much is known about the apostles before they died. And of course they wrote about christ. But something happened and those were lost. Or they live on in the 4 ggospels and gospel of Thomas that mesheswith John..

From the time of the death of Christ until that council of men chose the books to be in the NT as they rejected others, this period is sketchy with limited info. Much of what is known of the gospels is tradition ,guesswork and conjecture.

My mother was shocked when I told her that her bible did not ascend from heaven in 1611 AD.

And I disagree. The gospel of Thomas is coherent with his teaching in the other gospels. The parables were mystical and his apostles some of them had the insight to understand them. The masses were jews too and if they had insight they understood them too. Hell some of his own apostles didnt get his meaning. For they were not literal but mystical.

Lots of Gnosticism with Christ.

 

It was drawn from another aand older source. Purely an assumption.

Another assumption.

We dont know how many writings of Christ were destroyed. We don't know that Jesus wrote anything. I use his earthly name as I see no reason to believe he was divine.

Much of what is known of the gospels is tradition ,guesswork and conjecture. We know a fair bit about the gospel from Early Church Fathers and external sources.

Gnosticism is 'man made'. It's a game of trying to read Jesus mind, not his words. Some Jews do the same things with the Kabbalah and the Torah.

Jews were not ignorant regarding their scriptures. They had been brought up to learn them from the age of 5. They had teachers in the Synagogues etc. They had teachers (later called Rabbi's). The Jews knew their scriptures better than most average Christians know their Bible today.

 

It is reasonable conjecture givgiven the people expected to record his a0pearance is absent. They may be found one day as the gospel of thomas was found. How many scriptures from real early christian writers were destroyed? We may find copies buried or in caves.

Those early church fathers lived over a hundred years after the aapostles were dead. Christ didnt create church fathers. They and man created them . And what man touches he soils in the interest of power and status.

You dont know if mysticism is man made. Many of the teachings are mystical in nature. Orthodoxy is man made.
The only gospel that identified the author as an apostle is Thomas And it looks like this gospel was recorded by an apostle given it is just thr words of Christ . And something an apostle would want to record and pass on.

 

The Book of Thomas is merely sayings of Jesus taken from somewhere - probably the early gospels. Most commentators reject it being Thomas the Apostle.

The early church fathers are a valuable source of information about what was happening in the Early church - including heresies, etc that abounded. One of the reasons for the Church Councils of those centuries was to clear up - reject - heresies. Many Bishops - of small areas - made up their own doctrines on the divinity - non divinity - of Jesus. A various ideas of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon etc.

What was the point of using 'mystical' sayings if the people didn't understand them? And the preacher Jesus didn't expect there was going to be a Bible or Christianity.

 

There are many reasons why the vast majority of Theologians and Biblical Scholars place Mark first. The best evidence for me is the content.

In Mark - Jesus is just a man - who is made divine at his baptism as a man of 30 - no virgin birth. In Mark there is no lineage back to David. Perhaps most importantly - Mark has no stories of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death. The story ends with an empty tomb and the reader is left to wonder.

In Matt the divinity of Jesus has evolved - Jesus is now divine at birth. The author adds a lineage back to David to try and fulfill the messianic beliefs of the day. The author also adds the "smoking gun" - stories of Jesus appearing in the flesh after death.

If Matt came first - it would make no sense for the author of Mark to deliberately leave out such important details - especially the smoking gun which is the whole point of the faith - belief in the resurrection.

Matt contains all of Mark -sans a few passages that the author feels are derogatory to Jesus and the disciples. This kind of "artistic license" - aka pious fraud - is common in the Bible. As dogma That the author of Mark would decide to write a Gospel - using Matt as a source document but add - only- these few derogatory passages and nothing else - is not plausible IMO.

 

We've been over this fringe conspiracy theory before. No historian in the world is willing to back you up on this. You have it backwards.

 

The bottom line: You couldn't produce a legitimate authentic Greek language Bible from before the year 700 AD for all of the gold in the entire observable universe.

It has become impossible for historians to admit the truth because if they did the entire religious industry would collapse. It is a very big business but unfortunately it is built on nothing but lies.

You refuse to see the truth because it conflicts with what you want and need to be true to support your superstitious beliefs.

 

Isn't the Gospel of Thomas

the oldest manuscript known of any gospel?


Or is everyone too Greek to admit it

 

Already done, and your only response was to provide a terrible misreading of one random blog post. Meanwhile, you couldn't produce a legitimate historian who agrees with you for all of the gold in the entire observable universe.

Yet another fake argument; I'm appealing to secular historians, not religious ones.

If you think historical academia is "big business," then allow me to introduce you to anyone who works in historical academia so that they can laugh at you.

That's so adorable. And what superstitious belief would that be? Go on, can't wait to hear yet another fake argument.

 

The gospel of Thomas is mystical more so than other gospels with the exeption of john. It speaks of hidden knowledge. And he is the apostle who understood the christ the best according to that gospel. Instead of peter .

Imo it was much earlier than the 4 gospels.

By the time of the church fathers the intent of christ had been corrupted.

The absence of what the aapostles said is key in understanding something nefarious went on. The church that became the rcc is not a church based upon the teachings. That is clear.

Satan organized what we know as Christianity.

 

Christians still believe god will lead us in war against our enemies on Earth.

We laud religious war - when it is our religion.

 

And he is the apostle who understood the christ the best according to that gospel. Instead of peter .

Of course he said that. The same claim is made by another writer in another non-canonical book. John claims to be the disciple whom Jesus loved in his Gospel. Some people want to be considered the one that Jesus confides in secretly.

Imo it was much earlier than the 4 gospels.

You're welcome to your belief. The consensus is against you. As is the belief in the author being the disciple Thomas.

By the time of the church fathers the intent of christ had been corrupted

The 'intent of Christ has nothing to do with it.

The absence of what the aapostles said is key in understanding something nefarious went on.

If you don't know what, if anything, they said, how do you know this.

The church that became the rcc is not a church based upon the teachings. That is clear.

. Agreed. But then the teachings of Jesus were OT teachings without the detritus added by the Jews religious hierarchy. OT teachings moderated for the theme of mercy, not judgement. And the addition of 'Christian interpretation added to the Gospels.
There's nothing about Jesus in the OT. Only that misinterpreted by Christians.

 

You know what I tthink arose 50 years ago when I thought I should read the bible completely . My beliefs were based upon being raised up .as a Christian and taught by various preachers and such.

After doing this one thing really stood out to me as an incoherence. The Christianity I had learned about wwasnt grounded in what Christ taught. His way of salvation was different . It involved what can only be described as mystical for lack of a better word . So why is this and what happened to corrupt it?

It is indeed strange that the apostles did not have much to do with setting the written foundation of what was to become the rcc. In fact it is too strange .
I dont believe we know what happened but imo something did. And it replaced the very core. With the core being the teachings of god. Instead of a fervent seeking inwardly the keys to the kingdom another means replaced it . And imo a false means. And that false means does not change man . Instead you join a club and say the right things and self delude. The proof of this lies in the long sordid history of Christianity. If you discern the quality of a fruit bearing tree by its fruit it is obvious what that fruit is.

 

I don't think that Jesus preached anything than Judaism. Virtually everything he said was from the OT, though he taught mercy, not judgement. The 'Christian' stuff was added much later by the Gospel writers. The nativity stories are full of holes, as is the trial and crucifixion. The baptism of John was for repentance - but the gospel writer adds the descent of a dove for significance in Judaism. It signifies the suffering of the Jews (Psalm 74:19 Don't let these wild beasts destroy your turtledoves. Don't forget your suffering people forever'). The writer of Matthew was a Jew who was well versed in Jewish scriptures and their meaning. Her uses this analogy - the Spirit of God - to enhance his claim that Jesus was divine. The only witness we have of the baptism is John himself - and he wrote nothing.

I think we know exactly what happened. Paul took over. What we have is Pauline Christianity. A mixture of Judaism, 'new way teaching and Greek philosophy..

 

All of that twaddle of Christ leading people in war is from one book in the NT that barely was included. It is the only source of this bs and goes against the teachings of Christ.

It is absurd to entertain Christ acting like a killer. Revelations is a fabrication that sought to copy the prophets of the OT when it was not needed and which changed what Christianity should have been. If Christ did not say something but man did it should have no place in any book in the NT.
Christ is the final word. Otherwise you end up creating a religion not of love and the golden rule but the religion that killed in the name of god and tortured people.

 

I agree . Pauline Christianity .

That provided a path to salvation that is different from what Christ taught. I think that is important.

There is scripture in the OT where god through a prophet tells the Jews he never wanted animals sacrificed. So someone lied about god wanting blood sacrificed. Then Christ seen as a sacrifice is the continuation of this idea of a blood sacrifice .

Man does not like giving up tradition.

 

No, it's certainly not limited to events BC. And, we do not see Christians today taking a moderating position. The fact of Muslims as the "enemy" is a significant factor even if not the only factor.

In NT times, Jews were a totally dominated people and weren't faced with the possibility of successful religious war.

By the way, the golden rule is not the full message of Jesus on treatment of others.

Read Matthew 25:31 to end. What we think that WE would see as just and acceptable tratement of ourselves is NOT a full and complete measure of our responsibility to others. On pain of damnation, Christians are told to search out those who are suffering - those in hospitals, those in prisons, and render to them the help they need.

 

The GR encapsulates it very well in a few simple words.

It must be very hard for so few can do it consistently . But if we could it would change the world.

I guess only the reborn can do it ?