The Mystery Gospel of Mark

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by stan1990, Dec 19, 2019.

?

Do you believe that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest written among the four Gospels?

Poll closed Jan 18, 2020.
  1. Yes

    50.0%
  2. No

    25.0%
  3. Maybe

    25.0%
  1. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know what 1st Corinthians says - and Paul likens these appearances to his vision - He does not say "Jesus appeared in the Flesh" which he certainly would have had he heard such stories.

    Paul as not part of the Church of Jerusalem and so it is quite possible that - the disciples did not reveal this secret (assuming it happened course) . Regardless- Paul does not know.
     
  2. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1 Cor 15.
    Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the
    third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve…
    In the Gospels and Acts there is no question that for all but Paul, these visitations are in the flesh.

    (King) David and the prophet Isaiah say much the same thing. That he will suffer, be crucified and
    raise again.
     
  3. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nice cherry picking part of a passage from scripture - leaving out the part that is important to the discussion.

    For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

    So just as Christ appeared to Paul - he appeared to others. This is all we can take from this passage - you are trying to add meaning which simply is not there.

    Paul does not distinguish between his vision - and the other appearances. The only meaning we can give to appearances - is in the same way Christ appeared to Paul. Anything further is speculation.

    What is not so much speculation - is that given Paul's prolific writing - he should have made that distinction - at least said -- when Jesus returned in the flesh at some point in his writings ..he does not.

    The physical Resurrection is also strangely absent from the Gospel of Mark. So if you are a Christian - at the time when Mark was written - having only that gospel to go by - you don't know of any physical resurrection - given the material we have from this time.. roughly 60 AD.

    That Clement is not aware of these physical resurrection stories - is triple trouble. Now we are talking 95-100 AD.

    So either Clement had not read Matt , perhaps it had not yet been written, or those stories had not yet been added to the writings we refer to as the Gospel of Matt.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  4. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I mean that Paul stated his own revelation was through vision.
    But he notes that others had revelation, and their own account as
    given elsewhere, was that it was through the flesh.

    I just read Mark 16 and there is the account of the physical
    resurrection. And it has Jesus himself saying "But after that I am
    risen, I will go before you into Galilee." in Mark 14.
     
  5. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're simply assuming he preached a way of Salvation. The Gospels are Jewish teaching added to by the Gospel writers - whoever they were - after many years of reflection.

    Where do you get the idea that the Jewish preacher was divine? .THERE'S NO EVIDENCE for it, apart from Christian teaching.

    God living in man by the Holy Spirit is Pauls teaching (Romans 8). Jesus is reported to have said God's Kingdom was in Man. Much is Pauls teaching adapted by Gospel writers and forms Christianity. Paul never met Jesus. His information was secondhand

    He also uses Greek Philosophy regularly.

    God in us. The idea was nothing new.

    Paul said, “God is not far from each one of us; for in him we live, and move, and have our being.
    Seneca wrote, “God is at hand everywhere and to all men.” and again, “God is near thee ; he is with thee ; he is within.”.

    I credit the teachings of Jesus to Judaism. The addition of Christian teaching to the Gospel writers - and Pauls teachings I see no credible evidence that he was anything but an ardent Jew seeking to return his people to Jahweh. The corrupt religious hierarchy had him killed.
     
  6. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Paul makes no mention of Jesus appearing in the flesh to anyone after his death.

    The "Long Ending of Mark" was added after the fact. The original did not contain verses 9-20 - almost all Bibles state this - at least in the footnotes. The NIV says this right in the body of the text after vs 8.

    ]https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16&version=NIV

    The earliest versions of Mark do not contain the so-called "Long ending". The story ended with an empty tomb.

    2 Lessons learned here 1) The original story of Jesus as per Mark ended with an empty tomb. 2) Pious fraud was alive and well - this being just one - but a major example.

    There are even different versions of the long ending in different ancient Bibles.
     
  7. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only if you believe Christian teaching. Isaiah was talking about Israel - in the singular as happens often in Isaiah. And David, who was a tribal king wrote nothing about Jesus. Unless you take things out of context, of course.
     
  8. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some say that Isaiah 53 is speaking of Israel. It's as if someone has planted a
    theology right into the argument to explain away something confronting - yet the
    theology was created solely for the "explanation"
    There's no doctrine in the bible saying that Israel died to redeem the Jewish
    people. To invoke such a doctrine just to explain away one reference, of many,
    is quite obtuse.
    The first half of Isaiah 52 refers to Israel. The second half plus 53 refers to the
    Messiah who dies for His people, is resurrected and is pleased for what His
    suffering has achieved - atonement.
    Same with David's vision of the Messiah in Psalm 22 and 69. The man of sorrows
    who is rejected even of his own siblings, is betrayed and crucified - but lives to
    see His redeemed people, and those who preached that He has come to and
    done this for us.

    ps David was more than a tribal chieftain - he was King of the united Monarchy
    of Israel. And at that time a regional power.
     
  9. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wasn't Paul after the resurrected Jesus. In fact, wasn't he after all the Apostles had sort of scattered?

    I've always sort of wondered as to why he was even included in the New Testament, let along having more space than any single one of the gospels and probably more influence even than Jesus himself.
     
  10. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The so-called 'missing end' could simply have been a result of bad or incomplete copies
    of the original text.
    You can't tell what happened - you weren't there.
    A lot of "pious fraud" comes from self-declared experts, who, having derived their understanding
    from previous books, proceed to write their own.
    Lots of it make no sense at all, particularly the timing of the Gospels.
     
  11. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can't understand your grammar.
    Paul was influential for sure, but I don't see daylight between what he wrote
    and what Jesus said. Try reading a red letter bible of the Gospels and you
    get the impression it's Paul speaking, not Jesus.
     
  12. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed - good points. Paul was not part of the Church of Jerusalem - Church founded by the disciples after Jesus - and he did not have much association with the disciples. The Church knew about Paul - and to some degree accepted his mission to convert the gentiles - but as per their beliefs - which were both at odds with Paul in some cases - and certainly not derived from his writings - they were mostly interested in the Jews - because the scripture that reflects their beliefs says that Jesus came for the Jews .... and they were steeped in the Jewish Messianic Tradition of the day - where a David like figure would come to restore Israel to past glory - the Jewish people were engaged in civil war against the Romans.

    What happened to that Church has largely disappeared from the pages of history - we have a few stories about the travels of these disciples - but they are all martyred by around 60 AD - after which - history is silent. The original Gospel is written around this time - what would represent the first writings from Christianity that is recognized as cannon.

    After the Jewish Revolt (around 70 AD) the temple destroyed - not a good time for Jews - they are treated harshly - a heavy tax "just for being Jewish" called the "Fiscus Judaicus"

    Some dude pics up the pen and decides to update the story. He uses all of Mark (leaving out only a few passages that he feels are derogatory to Jesus and/or disciples) - but adds a few key things - in keeping with Messianic Tradition - still writing to a Jewish Audience.

    This is roughly 80-100 AD - Christianity is a hodge poge of all kinds of groups at this time - the Jews are in disarray - but Pauline Christianity has gotten quite a following - remember - all the Judeo Christians have produced is Mark - and it has only been around for perhaps 20 years.

    The author of Matt adds a virgin Birth to the story - the divinity of Jesus is evolving . He adds a lineage back to David - in keeping with Messianic Tradition - Suffering Servant or some such thing was part of messianic tradition.

    That's all we have. By the time we get to John (100-120) Pauline Christianity has taken over -and this group is distancing itself from anything Jewish.

    Paul does not seem to know any details of the life of Jesus (Mark had not yet been written). Not does he know much of the beliefs of the disciples with respect to Jesus - doesn't know the Oral History.
     
  13. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We can tell what happened - 300 years after the death of Christ - 250 years after the Gospel of Mark had been written - no one bothered to correct this "error". The first bibles were produced with no long ending - and Bibles existed for many centuries without this ending.

    So not only do the earliest Bibles not contain the long ending - 250 years after Mark was written - this continues.

    It is only after this time - that copies of the Bible with an added ending appear - and these endings are different.

    The earliest extant complete manuscripts of Mark, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both 4th-century manuscripts, and neither contain the last twelve verses .. as is the case for many Bibles that come later.

    Modern versions of the New Testament generally include the Longer Ending, but place it in brackets or otherwise format it to show that it is not considered part of the original text.

    Some descriptions of Pious Fraud are given the Catholic Encyclopedia - others are taught in Seminaries. The Bible is full of known interpolation - edits - omissions and so on.

    Further complicating the issue was that some held the belief that some of this was acceptable so long as it was advancing the cause - after all - the fate of one's soul is at risk.

    Would you like some good examples ?
     
  14. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Okay, I will tentatively accept the long ending account.
    An error is the account of the thieves on the cross - one
    repents in one account but not the other.
    Something similar happens with the two authors of the
    story of General Hannibal. Reading about Stalin now and
    again same thing happens - different accounts or varying
    interpretations. That's fine - if all Gospels were identical
    after so many year that THIS would be the point of attack.
     
  15. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While the differing accounts of things such as Jesus last words is troubling (and perhaps looked at an issue of pious fraud)- this is different. Those books were by roughly 100 AD.

    This is about taking what was written - and changing it dramatically - long after the fact.

    In terms of the passion narrative example - the first two accounts Matt/Mark - have Jesus claiming that his God had forsaken him. As Christian religious dogma developed - this did not really fit the narrative that well.

    The idea that the writer of John - 100-120 AD - was not aware of Mark/Matt - does not pass the smell test. Why then did this author not include this - and substitute something else ?

    Pious fraud most often occurs when the religious text conflicts with the dogma of the day. Take strict monotheism for example. The fact of the matter is that the ancient Israelite's were not strict monotheists. That there was only "One God" is simply something that they did not believe.

    This does not mean that the Israelite's were polytheistic (worshiping many Gods) While they believed in the existence of many - they were only to worship one.

    The older versions of the OT reflect this belief in a number of passages - Deuteronomy 32:8 is one example but I will focus on 32:43 is one example. See Page 7 in the link. http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf

    You will find this passage in 3 different Bibles - 2 from prior to CE - LXX 4DeutQ - and the Masoretic Text - 700-900 AD.

    In the older versions of the story - "The Heavens are rejoicing with God" The Sons of the divine are bowing and worshiping God. These are not "Angels"- as angels are mentioned separately.

    This is a huge problem because one can not the "the text is referring to Angels" argument. The text is clear. Also if we go outside this passage we can find other references to Son's of God - and modern scholarship knows what this was referring to. We know the story - part of which is given in 32:8 .. that El had 70 son's - and the earth was divided into portions on this basis - YHWH's portion being the offspring of Jacob/Israel.

    Psalm 82 also gives has El (mentioning him by name) presiding over a divine council. http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_144.pdf

    but I digress.

    Observe the Masoretic text - No mention of divinities - no mention of angels. Gone from the text.

    What is retained however is the last part - where God will "avenge the blood of his servants and will wreck vengeance on his foes and will "Cleanse" his peoples land"

    We all know that this "Cleansing" refers to "Ethnic Cleansing" in the most literal sense of the word. The xenophobia of the OT is legendary.

    So what does the modern text say ? - These Scholars that had access to all three versions. Did they continue the pious fraud ? or did they make corrections ?

    Let us go to the NIV Deut 32:43

    No mention of divinities or Son's of the Divine rejoicing with God in Heaven. It does mention angels in footnote (f) "Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls (see also Septuagint) people, / and let all the angels worship him" -but even the footnote makes no mention of the Sons of God or other divinities.

    "Ethnic Cleansing" of the land -and making atonement - convey two different ideas God is cleansing the land of evil in one case. God doing something else in the latter case. Note that in all 3 older texts - it is the peoples land .. in the modern version this has been changed to God's land.

    This passage then - as per a modern Bible - has been emptied of most of its previous meaning - and that which was kept was changed.



    To leave this out of the text is sketchy at best - to leave out of the footnotes is "Pious Fraud" - Full Stop. The "Sin of Omission"

    Did you notice the other example of Pious Fraud in this text ?
     
  16. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not assuming anything . I only read what he said. You can read it too. I do put his words above all others given who he was. He was specific on this issue. .And it doesnt jive with the words of man like paul.

    If Christianity had been based on the words of christ you would not have had the violent Christianity that is historical . His Christianity would have. brought forth good fruit instead of the bad fruit seen in Christianity of paul.
     
  17. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    20,614
    Likes Received:
    8,980
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm new to the discussion but I find your comment interesting. Can't say I disagree completely. I do agree that "without sacrifice, there is no remission of sin". God's love is sacrificial, and while we were yet sinners He demonstrated that love. That is my motive for "seeking the Kingdom". It is something I would never debate. Just I would never debate "once saved always saved". I think you have the idea.
     
  18. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cleansing of the land most likely meant cleansing of sin.
    Moses married a Gentile, and the Jews were enraged when Jesus reminded them that in
    Elias' day only two were helped - both Gentiles. And Jesus had Gentile in his own genes.

    Polygamy is a term I don't understand - the "Son of God" demolishes the notion immediately.
    So too do the angels, the devil and his angels and the "host of heaven."

    As for stating that the keepers of the scripture amended it to suit their beliefs - not so sure
    about that - there's tons of things that baffled scribes in those days that make sense only to
    us today. Take God commanding the sea to bring forth life as an example.

    I suspect John's Gospel was written AS IT HAPPENED.
    Luke and Acts were written by AD 66. And Luke references large chunks of Mark.
     
  19. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clearly you had no interest in the links provided :)

    The OT meaning of "Cleansing of the Land" - with respect to "wrecking vengeance on the his enemies" is the definition of xenophobia - genocide and so on. It is Ethnic Cleansing in every sense of the word. as stated previously - the OT is legendary for its xenophobia.

    Regardless - this was a minor element in the changes to the passage - rendering it void of previous meaning.

    Not sure why you are talking about polygamy - since it has nothing to do with the topic. Did you mean Polytheism ? The Israelite's believed in the existence of many Gods but, only were to worship one. Monolateralism.

    Of course the omissions were for reasons of dogma - making the text better conform to 1500 years of belief in monotheism.

    God commanding the sea to bring for life has nothing to do with anything - nor is it about scribes being baffled - or stupid.

    Luke/Acts were were not written AD 66. It is dated 80-130 AD. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html
    The commentary does address claims of a pre 70 dating but concludes -
    "John's Gospel written - as it happened" - what do you mean by this - that the author was taking notes as he was hanging on the cross ?
    I find it very unlikely that John was written by the apostle the book is named for.

    Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

    Some more commentary worth considering.
     
  20. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oops, monotheism, not polygamy!!!
    It's interesting - polygamy is forbidden in the New Testament.
    It was quite prevalent in Jewish history.
     
  21. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ahhh .. ok .. yes - that was one of the big problems for the first 300 years of Christianity. Every different group - and different segments within these groups - had a different idea with respect to the nature of the divinity of Jesus.

    Even after 100 - when the gospels were mostly written - no one was going around claiming Jesus was the same as "God the Father" - they were separate entities. At the same time they wanted Jesus to be divine - but, how do describe this nature without contradicting Monotheism ?

    The problem was never really solved. The "solution" - itself is a contradiction - and therefor - not a solution at all :)

    Even after Emperor Constantine declared Jesus to be "homoousios" - one substance with the Father - Many sects of Christianity rejected this for centuries .. Visigoths being just one of many groups (the dudes to sacked Rome and officially ended the western Roman Empire).
     
  22. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    7,695
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cleansing can mean all sorts of things. Until Babylon Israel had an on-going problem, not with Canaanites but with
    their practices and idols. As it was, the Jew didn't removed the Canaanite, but rather the other way around. The bible
    said the Jews became as Canaanites and Assyria and Babylon took them away.
    But this Luke business - I read the link. It goes into detail about how Luke most likely went with Paul to Rome --- but
    then wrote his account twenty or more years later. I read Acts as suggesting Luke was also a prisoner, and died with
    Paul.
    The "argument" is always fallacious. Luke speaks of Jesus prophesizing the end of Jerusalem THEREFORE LUKE
    WAS WRITTEN AFTER THE FALL OF JERUSALEM AS JESUS COULDN'T KNOW THE FUTURE.
    But Jesus also said the Jews would come back to Jerusalem when the Gentiles time is "fulfilled." I take that to be
    1967 when the Jews took Jerusalem. Now, by this logic LUKE WAS WRITTEN AFTER 1967.
     
  23. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There doesn't have to be a doctrine in the Bible. This was for the Jews - no one else. 7 centuries before Jesus appeared. It's beyond human understanding that anyone should believe a future prophecy 700 years before its supposed event. . Prophecies were for the time or immediate future. Isaiah 53 and onwards were meant for the Jews, encouragement in a time of trial and exile. They are full of Jewish misdeeds and evils. (Isaiah 57.) 'God says' Rebuild the road! Clear away the rocks and stones so my people can return from captivity'. (Babylon).Isaiah 16:13. Hezekiahs Temple. There never will be another earthly temple according to Revelations. Isaiah 65 is concerned with with Israel and Jacob.

    David was probably a tribal chief. who, with other tribes, threw the Egyptians out of Palestine while Pharaoh was occupied elsewhere. There was no invasion of Palestine by the Jews. Any 'Moses' would have to have been very stupid to take an Exodus of Jews into Palestine which was ruled by Egypt. The tribes already there joined together and threw the Egyptians out. It's quite possible that this 'David' united the tribes but the Biblical story is greatly exaggerated to give Israel a hero.
    If you care to study the Biblical 'life of David' This psalm is a summary of his life.
    Just a couple of points. He was rejected and despised by most of his family at one time or another. He was pierced to the depths by Absalom 'Oh Absalom, my son Absalom'. .
    We don't know who actually wrote many of the Psalms. They are simply attributed. How many are David's or other writers and how many are formed from other Canaanite and Ugarit poetry.

    Misinterpretation of the OT was the reason for Christianity's rise. Matthew's Nativity story does just that. simply twists the OT., and Pauls mixture of Judaism and Greek philosophy did the rest.
     
  24. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're still assuming the words you read are the words said. Jesus was a Jew with a Jewish upbringing. He believed the OT because he had been taught that this was right.
    As a Jew, some of the words put into his mouth would have turned the disciples away and condemned Jesus to ostracism - even by the ordinary people.
     
  25. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No - and Yes. Cleansing means killing people in the context of the passage not "all sorts of things". At the "supposed" time of the writing of the passage - the Jews had not been taken away- in fact they had not yet entered the promised land.

    You do make an interesting point with respect to the Israelite's becoming as Canaanites. If one reads the book - as I have - paying attention to how much time the Israelite's spend worshiping this YHWH fellow - you will find - not much.

    The God of Abraham was El - Enlil Chief God of the Sumerian Pantheon - revealed to him by the name El Shaddai - Lord of the Mountain - the Most High - the Father - Creator and so on. These are all epithet's of El.

    During the centuries of captivity the Israelite's worshiped El. We know this from 1) Golden Calf story 2) Joshua tells us this
    .
    Joshua 24
    That Joshua gives the people a choice is odd - given that the Mosaic penalty for worshiping other God's is death. The calf incident - Bull-El and Consort Ashera - is also strange. Moses leaves for a few weeks - and right away the people - Led by Aaron, brother of Moses - start worshiping the old Gods - the Holy Trinity El - Consort Ashera - and the Son Baal.

    This is hardly something one would expect from people who had actually witnessed the miracles of God first hand - and especially not from the Brother of Moses.

    After Joshua dies - we are told that the people go right back to worshiping the old Gods - Not much attention being paid to YHWH. This continues right up to David - complete with child sacrifice.

    Under Solomon - temples are being built to other God's - including the child sacrifice God's. After Solomon - YHWH was near completely forgotten - Elisha tells us that in all of Israel he is the only prophet left for YHWH - 500 exist for Baal - and 450 for Asherah.

    Then - after near 1000 years of ignoring YHWH - the book of the Law is found in the Temple - and YHWH worship supposedly resumes. This only goes on for a short time though - as soon after the Babylonians destroy the Temple.
     

Share This Page