Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 10-14-2012, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I was actually at a baptism today.

And why not, if the notion of sacraments is self-evident!

Quote:

A friend of my wife was having her daughter baptized. Heard the homily on Mark 10:17 - 31 (how fitting for someone interested in Secret Mark).

Maybe not a coincidence? Or are we seeing things that are not there?

Quote:

The priest brought up how 'something seems to have been cut out of the narrative' because Jesus 'loves' but abandons the young man who asks him about eternal life.

Yes, something cut out, something else inserted, by the cultic priest. Nothing unusual in that. In the normal version of events, it is the young man who abandons Jesus, because he prefers what money can buy. An extremely common phenomenon in the USA, of course. It's hard to know if the alternative even exists there. It's Jesus who is at fault, where Mammon is worshipped.

Quote:

In any event, the priest brought up an interesting point. How can the man declare "ταυτα παντα εφυλαξαμην εκ νεοτητος μου" all these I have kept from my youth with respect to the commandments? The Jews acknowledge 613 commandments.

But if we read Matthew, we get the whole progress of thought. We see there that the rich young man wanted an easier answer than "Keep the commandments," which he already knew was necessary for salvation. What he wanted was one good deed he could do, while hanging on to his wealth. Like many Americans today. Obviously, they both realised that not all the commandments he could keep, but all of those he could keep, he must keep, to be saved. But, to allow the man to realise what was troubling him, Jesus specified not even 1% of the total. A reasonable standard, that probably many Jews listening supposed that they attained. But Jesus left out what he elsewhere said was the most important commandment of all: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." Which, as far as the man went, was equivalent to saying: "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore, I tell you, don't be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?"

So the young man abandoned Jesus because he evidently thought that life was no more than food, clothing and other such things.

This was an easy homily subject for Catholic priests when most Catholics were on or near the bread line, but in the modern USA, that has wealth that stupefies others, it's not so manageable. What one can be quite sure of is that no employee of the Vatican is going to tell America what Jesus said to the young man. Nor will its Calvinists, Charismatists, Creationists and KJVOers.

stephan huller · 10-14-2012, 11:27 AM

For those who accept or entertain the existence of Secret Mark here IMO is Clement referring to the commonly held text with the Marcionites:

Quote:

Right from the beginning the law, as we have already said, lays down the command, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife," long before the Lord's closely similar utterance in the New Testament, -- where the same idea is expressed in his own mouth: "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust." [Strom 3.11]

This saying appears nowhere in the canonical gospels but could have been 'added/retained' IMO in Secret Mark just after the Marcionite reading (Tertullian only cites the phrase). The whole of Stromata 3 is a debate about this reading which the heretics held in common with Clement. Str. 3.2

Quote:

And how can this man still be reckoned among our number when he openly abolishes both law and gospel by these words. The one says: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The other says: "Everyone who looks lustfully has already committed adultery." The saying in the law, "Thou shalt not covet," lt shows that one God is proclaimed by law, prophets, and gospel; for it says: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife."

Later in the same chapter Clement gets around to citing the saying from the shared non-canonical gospel:

Quote:

If the adulteress and he who committed fornication with her are punished with death, clearly the command which says "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" speaks of the Gentiles, in order that anyone who, as the law directs, abstains from his neighbour's wife and from his sister may hear clearly from the Lord, "But I say unto you, Thou shalt not lust." The addition of the word "I," however, shows the stricter force of the commandment, and that Carpocrates fights against God, and Epiphanes likewise.

And then later in Chapter Four of the same book:

Quote:

The Lord has said: "But I say unto you, you shall not lust." How then can he live according to God's will who surrenders himself to every desire? And is a man to decide of his own free will that he can sin, and lay it down as a principle that one may commit adultery and revel in sin and break up other men's marriages, when we even take pity on others if they fall into sin against their will?

The man in Mark chapter 10 says "I know the commandments," starts with do not adulterate (because it is a continuation of the discussion earlier in the chapter on divorce (Mark 10:2 - 16) and then 'in the house' or as he is leaving to go on the way fully explains the meaning of the saying at the beginning of the chapter. The commandment 'do not lust' grounds the saying about wealth for Clement and his tradition (see Quis Dives Salvetur)

I simply don't understand how people can deny the existence of a longer gospel of Mark which was used by the Marcionites and Clement's Alexandrian community. Hippolytus makes it explicit. Clement's homily on Mark 10:17 - 31 despite citing the publicly circulating text of Mark assumes the context of lust which isn't in the original text:

Quote:

[I know the commandments] do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and thy mother. All these have I observed. And Jesus, looking upon him, loved him, and said, "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust. One thing thou lackest. If thou wouldest be perfect, sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me.

Now everything in Clement's Quis Dives Salvetur suddenly makes sense. Without it Clement's argument that Jesus doesn't mean get rid of money but passions sounds like bullshit.

stephan huller · 10-14-2012, 11:41 AM

And in case the argument is not clear to people. Chapter 10 begins with a discussion of 'divorce' (which the heretics took as meaning 'absolving the traditional bond with the Law') and ends with the words:

Quote:

He [Jesus] answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her." [Mark 10:11]

Mark has an amazingly complex way of weaving stories into one another. Far from being 'primitive' it is actually highly complex and subtle. The question of the rich man is itself a continuation of the (secret) discussion 'in the house' (Mark 10:10 - 11) which is itself a continuation of the statement Jesus made in public before the Pharisees.

stephan huller · 10-14-2012, 11:45 AM

Public discussion - Mark 10:2 - 9

Quote:

Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” “What did Moses command you?” he replied (= human authority not God). They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh (but not one spirit). Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (but God still has the authority to separate as he did the Sabbath in another section)

Private discussion - Mark 10:10 - 11

Quote:

When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.

Spiritual Exegesis - Mark 10:17 - 21

Quote:

And going forth into the way, one approached and kneeled, saying, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life? And Jesus saith, Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.

[And he said, "I know the commandments] do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and thy mother. All these have I observed. And Jesus, looking upon him, loved him, and said, "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust. One thing thou lackest. If thou wouldest be perfect, sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me.

Conclusion of the narrative Mark 10:34a:

Quote:

And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.

Whatever the original 'mystery of the kingdom of God' involved it certainly included castration hence Origen.

sotto voce · 10-14-2012, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Of course it is harder to explain why that Catholic priest read the passage the way he did. Maybe he too is a (secret) Marcionite.

Maybe he dearly wishes that Marcion could be accepted as a serious fellow by anyone in his congregation. Maybe his congregation is withering, like so many. Maybe he realises that, to have any chance of being taken seriously, he needs to dump all the stinking ordure of the first millennium after that bastard, and start afresh with Marsilius.

There you are, stephan, he even has a Latin name to ease you upon your way.

Vorkosigan · 10-14-2012, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But at this forum I would merely argue that Detering's position (and those who share it with him) that the gospel was written in the second century at the time of the Bar Kochba revolt simply doesn't fit this literary framework. The Sadducees had already disappeared. The only people holding on to this view were the Samaritans. This is indeed the most powerful follow up argument to the little apocalypse in chapter 13 of Mark that the text was written at the time of the destruction of the temple.

Not a powerful blow at all. For the writer of Mark to include this view of the Sadduccees, all he would have to know is that they held that view. Obviously he knows much about Jewish culture. He's reliant on written sources; surely it would be possible for him to locate one that talks about the Sadduccees, or talk to a Jewish literati who knows. This is hardly probative as to the date of the gospel.

Vorkosigan

proudfootz · 10-14-2012, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And in case the argument is not clear to people. Chapter 10 begins with a discussion of 'divorce' (which the heretics took as meaning 'absolving the traditional bond with the Law') and ends with the words:

Quote:

He [Jesus] answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her." [Mark 10:11]

Mark has an amazingly complex way of weaving stories into one another. Far from being 'primitive' it is actually highly complex and subtle. The question of the rich man is itself a continuation of the (secret) discussion 'in the house' (Mark 10:10 - 11) which is itself a continuation of the statement Jesus made in public before the Pharisees.

I know that one of the Ten is against adultery - so it would seem any 'law' about divorce is not covered, either pro or con.

stephan huller · 10-14-2012, 05:47 PM

mmmmmmm. the argument of mark 10:11 - 12 is that leaving your wife and marrying another is adultery

Sheshbazzar · 10-14-2012, 06:28 PM

Sorry to have to bring this up again folks, but due to family obligations I had to be away for the day.
So I'll have to ask aa these questions again as his previous reply, post #9 did not at all address these two questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Life of Flavius Josephus

Quote:

So JESUS the son of Sapphias....... the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people, prevented us, and took with him certain Galileans, and set the entire palace on fire...

WHEN did JESUS, the son of Sapphias live?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Life of Flavius Josephus

Quote:

... I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to TITUS, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered.

WHEN did TITUS live?

aa5874 · 10-14-2012, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

While I am sure you will not concede the Marcionite gospel is the original or even the original Mark (but see Philosophumena 7:18 for the fact this must have been claimed by the Marcionites), nevertheless it is one more argument in favor of the Marcionites being rooted in an archaic form of Judaism. The double reference shows the Marcionites were first and rooted in the first century along with their gospel...

Did NOT Marcion live in the 2nd century and was a contemporary of Justin?? There is simply zero actual evidence that the Marcionites were a 1st century cult.

First Apology

Quote:

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-14-2012, 05:47 PM	#18
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	mmmmmmm. the argument of mark 10:11 - 12 is that leaving your wife and marrying another is adultery

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.