The Mystery Gospel of Mark

True. But Luke went to Rome most likely as a prisoner with Paul - both these men were
Christian preachers. And in Rome Luke's writing suddenly ends. Had Luke survived Paul
and lived for many more years then I am sure he would have continued his Acts. As it
was, Luke was an enemy of Rome like Paul was.
Not one writer of the New Testament referred to the destruction of Israel and the Temple.
It was certainly a Big Deal when it happened.

 

So how do YOU interpret Daniel's remark about Rome destroying the city, the temple
and the Messiah? I take it to mean exactly what it says.
When Jesus warned of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem there were many who
took that quite seriously - and saved their lives.
And how then do you see the Jews returning to their homeland today after
two thousand years? See any Midianites, Edomites, Assyrians, Babylonians
etc returning and rebuilding their homelands and resurrecting their ancient
languages?

 

Remember, the current return of the Jews to Israel is far more improbable than that of the Exodus.
You aren't going to get much information from nomadic people, or slaves. Witness the new research
on the Edomites and estimates of their population, wealth and organization from the Timna valley
research. Many Israelites were still tent dwelling people in King Solomon's day.

Yes, Rome was in Israel as you say. Daniel says they will come in like a flood. Make of that what
you may. Certainly the single legion under General Gallus was not sufficient for the first of those
three wars.

 

There's evidence Daniel was written after First Century AD because Daniel
mentions the Romans and destruction of the Messiah.
There's evidence Daniel was written in the 1800's because Daniel says that
Rome will fall, but it will never fall - meaning I suppose there was a Rome
when Rome was gone - Roman Catholic Church, Holy Roman Empire etc..

And of course, the Gospels were written sometime after the 1960's as they
speak of the Jews returning to their homeland. Isaiah says the Jews will return
a "second time" so that was written ca 20th Century too.

 

Paul wasn't an enemy of Rome. He was born a Roman Free Citizen. He was executed on the orders of Nero who was an enemy of Christianity

 

For sure, but you should know what I meant - Rome was Nero.
Christians were an enemy of Nero.

 

Simple. It doesn't. The ancient Hebrew Bible has a completely different interpretation. I'm not going to go through it, it's too complicated Just read this.https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/daniel-9-a-true-biblical-interpretation/

BOLD. They don't need to. They have intermingled and occupy lands of their fathers. The Jews isolated themselves. They are related to their neighbours - except by religion.
One accepts the Mythical Isaac as their branch of Mythical Abraham. The other accepts Mythical Ishmael as their branch of Mythical Abraham. And all Abrahamic religions are based on earlier myths. Such is life.

Daniel does not mention the 'Messiah'. Messiah means anointed one in Hebrew, and there were plenty of those in Jewish History.

Here's a thought for you. Have you ever tried reading Shakespeare's Sonnets? If you have you will realise that many of them make little sense - unless you know the language and phrases used at the time. Many OT scriptures are taken at face value in modern terms. It doesn't work

Well, if you want to believe those 'facts', please do. I don't believe in prophecies. They are usually the result of an astute man reading the situation and warning of its consequences. If you study the History of the time of Isaiah you can see the understanding of the situations in Isaiah's mind. Palestine wasn't a peaceful country in Jesus time. It could be pretty violent. False 'Messiahs' came, drew men to them, and caused the Romans a lot of trouble. The Zealots 'Siccari' were not averse to violence. Jesus could easily have seen what was likely to happen. Other prophecies are simply made at the time and are really history.
In the 1930's an astute man named Churchill saw the threat of Hitler. His warning were ignored. Another politician made an infamous speech in Parliament which was roundly condemned. None the less, he was far seeing.

 

Not at all. Nero was himself. Many Romans were even against Nero.

 

His ministry only lasted three years, and many parts of the Gospels don't end until much later; Paul's death is usually assumed to be around A.D. 67, after all, so the 'books' couldn't be finished until much later, after his execution in any case.There were no 'books' then, nor numbered verses; that all came later to make the material easier to use as a reference work. In any case, the orthodox views were there from the beginnings, and not some stuff imposed later, as many hope to claim. The Gnostic stuff is total rubbish.

Well, lots of people do indeed want to rewrite what was taught, in order to make assorted whiny sniveling deviants and sociopaths happy and feel better about themselves. My personal interest is historical.

I agree. Since he was resurrected, it's clearly not a sacrifice at all, much less a 'blood' sacrifice.

 

I see some still think Christians are supposed to be some variation of mindless hippie pacifism, which is just ridiculous. Some of the Apostles carried swords, after all, and Peter himself whacked the ear off an official, obviously being very handy with one. There is no command to not defend oneself and family or one's country, from thieves or invaders in the NT.

 

Many of his teachings were gnostic in nature.

Christianity believes in the sacrifice and the cleansing blood. You ever go to church?

 

None of Jesus teachings were Gnostic. It's all in the mind. Gnosticism derived from the heretical movements of the 1-3rd centuries. Jesus himself was quite clear in what he said. The Gospels writers confused the whole issue. He came to his own, spoke to his own, lived as one of his own and died like some of the prophets - by religious heretics.

 

Rubbish His primary revelation involving seeking the kingdom within consciousness, knocking on metaphorical doors within consciosness and the rebirth of consciousness is mystical or gnostic in nature and not .orthodox .



What is orthodoxy is the idea his death and rising from the dead is what saves
man and reconciles him to god

Those that wanted to organize a new religion could not organize the personal quest involved in salvation as easily with a heiarchy of man with authority a priestly caste. You didnt need that when each person sought thekingdom within consciousness.

Orthodoxy created a position for a religious authority. Doing what Christ taught needs no expert indeed they get in the way and no one finds the kingdom and change in consciousness . The only guide in seeking comes via the holy spirit not man.

Quite the scheme your orthodoxy is! And it made plenty of room for Satan to play and keep people from the required change in consciousness by the rebirth.

 

Christ taught love not war. He set an example of what a true follower should do. And it wasnt killing in the name of god. He was not muslim.

Of course you can prove this wrong by quoting his teaching He didnt fight to save his life and rejected peter and his sword

Yet all of life will fight to save its life . It is hard wired into the organism by the creator. Yet a true Christian knows that he lives past death of his body and only god can destroy that living soul.

There is no such thing as a Christian soldier marching off to war .

The Quakers got it right.

 

Did you see the Jewish Hebrew language version I gave you. And who should know their language than those to whom it belonged. All we have is a polluted version of the original

The Kingdom of God within was nothing new in Jesus day. The idea appears in other religions. .

Seneca wrote, “God is at hand everywhere and to all men.” and again, “God is near thee ; he is with thee ; he is within.”

Pauls uses Greek philosophy often in his Epistles. They appear long before the Gospels are written. Jesus

Read this http://www.grethexis.com/greek-philosophy-in-the-new-testament/

Gamaliel, who taught Judaism, also taught Greek philosophy to his many Pharisaic students. Paul uses it often. Pharisees of Jesus day would have also known it.

Again, you don't know what Jesus taught. All you have is words in a book written by biased writers..

 

OneMind Yet all of life will fight to save its life . It is hard wired into the organism by the creator. Yet a true Christian knows that he lives past death of his body and only god can destroy that living soul.

Rubbish. Many gave/give their lives to save others. Life is what it is. Death is part of it. Live up to the reality.

 

I see some still think Christians are supposed to be some variation of mindless hippie pacifism, which is just ridiculous. Some of the Apostles carried swords, after all, and Peter himself whacked the ear off an official, obviously being very handy with one. There is no command to not defend oneself and family or one's country, from thieves or invaders in the NT.

Rubbish. He was executed, not sacrificed. You obviously have reading problems.

 

I am telling you what Christianity believes . To deny that fact is rubbish

I dont buy into the sacrifice and never said that I did. You seem to have the reading deficit..

 

This is indeed true yet it is more common to fight to survive.

I would give my life to save my family. Love is stronger than personal survival .

 

Worthy view

 

The Gospel of Mathew is a Mystery, i do agree.

 

Who was the Mark character? Was he an Apostle? How did he become privy to the intimate details that he wrote about? It seems that he just pulled the story out of his butt. It is pure fiction.

 

Tradition holds that Mark was a student of and interpreter for Peter.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

Take from that what you may but it is the best that the Gospels have to offer - the closest we get to an actual disciple.

 

Peter was dumber than a grasshopper. He had supposedly tagged along after Jesus for years but when Paul showed up he let Paul create the Christian doctrine. Peter was an idiot.

 

Yes - I think some of the non canonical gospels seem to confirm that premise as well.

Mark's Gospel paint's a different picture - it is more unrefined and raw. No virgin birth - Jesus is transformed - deified according to some - what does God talking out of a cloud saying "You are my Son" mean ? - as a man of 30 at baptism.

Goes through the standard ritual - 40 days in the desert - has the appropriate vision.

The Disciples don't think he is a God - a blessed Messiah Yes - a deified leader of sorts - one who has God's favor - Yes.
The Chosen one of God - slightly deified in that respect. That is the Jesus of Mark.

There is no - Jesus coming back in the flesh after death - The reader is left to wonder as the story of Mark ends with the empty tomb.

Jesus has a rag tag band of followers.

Mark is dated to around 60 but some of the material may well have been from earlier. It is quite a short story if you think about it. Especially considering the subject matter - bits and pieces of information pieced together. It is not like folks back in the day could not write.

We have records of lengthy speeches by the Senate - Historians detaining stuff - If the author was an "interpreter" this means he spoke two different languages - Greek and Aramaic - and he was obviously literate - Unlike Peter.

Why then write so little ?

Moving on - two to four decades later - is a significant period of time - the disciples all been martyred (including John). The Temple has been destroyed and the Jews are not having a good time of it. There is a tax "fiscus judaicus" just for being Jewish.

If the Church of Jerusalem is still around - we don't know much about it from this point on. The ministry that Paul started though is thriving.

The dating of Matt is 80-100 - my guess would be earlier rather than later. Christianity is evolving - there are all different kinds of Christian groups - Gnostics and so on - The author takes Mark - and expands on it. He gives Jesus a virgin birth and a lineage back to David - The author is likely Jewish - as he is wanting to maintain the Jewish Messianic tradition that prevailed at that time - There were a bunch of Messiah's in the first century AD.

Matt also adds the smoking gun - "proof that the promise of a resurrection after death is real" Stories of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death.

Mark knows of no such stories - nor do the writings of Paul - who likens appearances of Jesus to his vision... like those who see the virgin Mary in the clouds.

The author of Matt is not above a little pious fraud - he uses all of Mark - except a few passages that he finds derogatory to Jesus and the disciples .. Perhaps he left out some of the negative stuff on Peter. This is straight out of the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The writing of John is something completely different - a few decades more have past and Christianity has evolved further. The Church is separating itself from anything Jewish - Both John and Luke are very anti Jewish in their character - as opposed to Mark/Matt.

http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Fiscus Judaicus.pdf

The author of John creates a Pauline Hellenistic Fusion work - He uses different language as well - Jesus was not made divine at baptism nor at birth. Jesus was pre-incarnate - his has become "The Logos" - the emissary between God and Man.

This is terminology that all the Greek Speaking Pauline crowd - and people in general - understood. The author was trying to appeal to a broader and more sophisticated audience.

Jesus is still not God though - that takes another 200 years when he is finally turned into "The Father" - God of All - by Emperor Constantine.