Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 02-07-2013, 10:57 AM

Mark 15:39 is ridiculous.

Quote:

And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, "Truly, this man was the Son of God!"

The centurion in Mark didn't observe any miracles going on. According to the text of Mark all this centurion saw was another dying Jew jabber out a few unintelligible words in mangled Hebrew Aramaic and droop dead.

There is no conceivable reason in this text of Mark why any Roman centurion would have declared; "Truly, this man was the Son of God!"
-unless perhaps it were as the final mockery.

Like 'Yeah riiiight, Sure ....this is the man (now a hunk of dead meat hanging) that was 'the son of gawd.'

In other words. the exact -opposite- of what the popular christian Roman suck-up reading implies.

I'd lay my bet that this was the original authors intent here.

Chili · 02-07-2013, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

I once had that thrown at me by a certain Tim O'Neil when I mentioned the silence of Philo about Jesus of Nazareth. His response was: "why should Philo write about a little known figure of that time?
My response that it's a "lame duck excuse" means just that. A lame duck [lamb?] excuse waiting to be slaughtered.

Tim O'Neil does not know what he is talking about.

Philo was supposedly a contemporary of Paul who went "all over" the Roman Empire since 37-41 CE telling people in major cities of the Roman Empire of a Messianic ruler and Son of God called Jesus who actually Resurrected and was a Sacrificial Lamb for the Remission of Sins for All mankind.

If there was an historical Jesus and Paul really travelled "all over" the Roman Empire and wrote letters to Churches about the Son of God then Jesus could NOT have been a little known figure in the time of Philo.

Enough there for Philo to write a sentence at least. But there were other writers in the first century who also left us many stories of that era, none mentions a Jesus of Nazareth.
Seems suspect that Constantine's friend and mentor Eusebius had his quill well and truly in the ink pot.

Philo even wrote about a Crazy Man named Carabbas but wrote NOTHING of Jesus, the Messianic ruler, who was believed to be the Son of God.

If a Crazy Man was more well known that Jesus the Son of God and Messianic ruler then Jesus must have been born of the DEAD or the Son of a Ghost.

Philo's Flaccus

Quote:

There was a certain madman named Carabbas, afflicted not with a wild, savage, and dangerous madness (for that comes on in fits without being expected either by the patient or by bystanders), but with an intermittent and more gentle kind; this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths...

Look at it right there in the Canon.

Jesus was Born of the DEAD.

Colossians 1:18 KJV

Quote:

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence .

Key word here is "believed" to be the son of God, which Jesus was not, nor ever will be regardless of what those 20.000 Jesus worshipers proclaim.

Go to Luke's lineage and read for yourself: "so it was supposed - son of Joseph."

And do you think the words "so it was supposed" are there by accident? or do they really mean that Jesus was not the son of Joseph.

It is called Lexischemy in the art of sophistry to befuddle curious readers now as look-alikes to preach the good news that keeps the flame alive by the [self] 'called' to nurture the [God] 'chosen' who later will crucify him. These are the cold dead Christians known as the "Staalmeesters' in Dutch (steel masters), that is translated as 'Draper Syndics' here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndics...apers%27_Guild

It is actually this same Rembrandt who slaugered an ox and called it crucifixion, but that text does not seem to be around anymore.

Chili · 02-07-2013, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

My argument is that the short gMark is the earliest book of the Canon and it is well supported by the evidence.

//

The short gMark's Jesus was an Apparition, he appeared as a Man but was the Son of God.

But we have no trouble with that and agree that this Jesus was Son of God who appeared as a man, but "as from his mother's womb untimely ripped" with no wings to soar.

Mark foreshadows the 'one' who is to come in Luke and in John in this quatrain wherein two opposites are needed to make each other known. The quatrian here shows both the metaphysics first to be follewed by the physics in each, and that is what brings the apparition home to rest as a thriple A that here makes hell known as opposite to heaven for eternity in life as it is.

An apparition is an appearance that demands validation for it to be 'fact' and you provide all the evidence to send this Jesus to hell, along with the religious imposter in Matthew.

It just validates Judaism from where the Lamb of God must be first so it can be nourished by 'the manger of tradition' that Nazareth is all about.

angelo · 02-07-2013, 11:04 PM

Is anyone here familiar with R.G.Price's work? If not, have a glance at this work. It's very interesting. I have the book here.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

aa5874 · 02-07-2013, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark 9

2 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter, and James, and John, and led them up into a high mountain apart by themselves; and he was transfigured before them.........................and there came a cloud overshadowing them; and there came a voice from the cloud: THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, HEAR HIM.

Now, when Jesus was arrested the disciples abandoned Jesus and Peter denied that he knew the MAN Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Now wasn't that bit ridiculous? They had just been present on that high mountain,
had personally witnessed the astounding 'transfiguration' of Jebus,
and had even had Gawd Almighty Hisself talk to them personally and directly from heaven.
......And their still afraid of being arrested?
Even after having seen, heard, and experienced all of this -first hand and personally-, they still cain't trust their Gawd no how.
Why in the hell then should anyone else?

Its a flaky tale, apparently James, John, and Peter, never knew what a miraculous encounter they had experienced on that mythical high mountain.

(read, Mark 9:2-10 is late redacted horse shit cobbed from Matthew 17)

We are not dealing with history. The author did Not claim he was writing history but it is evident that in antiquity and even today people BELIEVE the Jesus story in gMark.

People Believe the Jesus story in gMark because they think Jesus was the Son of God like the Roman centurion.

Mark 10

Quote:

27 Looking on them, Jesus says: With men, impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God...

Jesus, the son of God, can do anything in gMark because with God ALL Things are possible.

People who believe in God can accept the Jesus story in the short gMark.

If you believe Jesus is the Son of God in gMark then you will be saved--that is the story of the short gMark.

The short gMark in the Canon predates all stories and letters in the NT where it is claimed that Jesus was a Sacrificial Lamb and was crucified for the Universal Remission of Sins.

aa5874 · 02-08-2013, 09:10 AM

The short gMark is most fascinating and was the Jesus story that IMPACTED the cult.

However, the short gMark was mutilated by later authors and the story in gMark was changed to present Jesus, the Son of God, as a Sacrificial Lamb who was crucified for the Universal Remission of Sins.

The short gMark Jesus came to fulfill prophecy.

The Jews, even the disciples, saw but did NOT perceive and heard but did NOT understand.

In the short gMark Jesus spoke to the people in PARABLES.

The disciples of Jesus had to ask Jesus about the meaning of the Parables.

There is No Sermon on the Mount or on the plain in the short gMark--just PARABLES and Miracles.

No-one understood Jesus until he explained them PRIVATELY to his disciples.

The Jews would NOT be able to understand what Jesus said and who he was UNTIL the Jewish Temple was made desolate c 70 CE.

The short gMark Jesus story was composed to fulfill Isaiah 6.

Isaiah 6

Quote:

8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying , Whom shall I send , and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

9 And he said , Go , and tell this people, Hear ye indeed , but understand not; and see ye indeed , but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this people fat , and make their ears heavy , and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert , and be healed .

11 Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered , Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant , and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate , 12 And the LORD have removed men far away , and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land....

Mark 4

Quote:

.... 10 And when he was alone, those about him with the twelve asked him about the parables.

11 And he said to them: To you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God but to them that are without all things are done in parables;

12 that seeing they may see and may not perceive; and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest perhaps they should turn and it should be forgiven them...

The short gMark Jesus story can ONLY be composed AFTER the Fall of the Temple because the Jews and outsiders must NOT understand and perceive that Jesus was the Son of God and be Converted.

Acts of the Apostles and ALL the Epistles MUST be or most likely was composed AFTER the Fall of the Temple and AFTER the short gMark.

Essentially, there cult be NO Jesus cult at all Before the Desolation of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple.

Isaiah 6 must first come to pass before the Jews and outsiders understand and perceive that Jesus was the Son of God.

The short gMark only makes sense if it predated Acts of the Apostles and ALL the Epistles.

Onias · 02-08-2013, 08:24 PM

A very interesting and illuminating thread! From this I can see that GMark was later redacted by Paulinists. The original 'Jesus', if he existed, was not intended to be a sacrificial lamb for the sins of humanity.

It seems the other gospels that were written later included this Paullution from Pauline redactors, though I do notice one verse in John that seems to show the mission of Jesus was completed before he was crucified.

John 17:4
I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

aa5874 · 02-08-2013, 10:42 PM

It can easily be deduced that the short gMark is the earliest writing in the Canon.

In the short gMark, Jesus taught Nothing to the outsiders.

Nobody understood Jesus unless he personally explained the Parables.

Even the disciples had to ask Jesus PRIVATELY what he was talking about.

When Jesus told the disciples that he would be killed and resurrect after three days they did NOT understand him and were AFRAID to ask.

Mark 9

Quote:

31 For he taught his disciples and said to them that the Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and when he has been killed he will rise after three days.

32 But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask him.

There is NOTHING about a Sacrificial Lamb in gMark.

But in gJohn, all of a sudden, Jesus teaches that he will Give his life for the Universal Salvation of mankind.

John 3:16 KJV

Quote:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life.

John 15:13 KJV

Quote:

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Now, examine the Entire short gMark, Jesus did NOT say that he Loved the Jews or the outsiders--Jesus did NOT want them to be converted. See Mark 4

The "Love" theme in the Jesus story was a LATE development.

Who else had a "Love" theme?? The Pauline writers.

Galatians 2:20 KJV

Quote:

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

However, the Pauline letters are far more advanced than even gJohn.

Remission of Sins can be obtained if it is believed Jesus was resurrected.

Romans 10:9 KJV

Quote:

..That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

There is NO such thing in the short gMark. The earliest Jesus did NOT tell anyone that there would be Remission of Sins by his resurrection.

Salvation by Sacrifice and the Resurrection are LATER developments of the Jesus story.

The short gMark is the earliest in the Canon including ALL the Epistles.

Onias · 02-09-2013, 10:31 AM

aa5874 wrote:

Quote:

The short gMark Jesus story can ONLY be composed AFTER the Fall of the Temple because the Jews and outsiders must NOT understand and perceive that Jesus was the Son of God and be Converted.

But wasn't Jesus a Jew and weren't his disciples Jews? Or are you just referring to the Jewish authorities who were collaborating with Rome?

MrMacSon · 02-09-2013, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

aa5874 wrote:

Quote:

The short gMark Jesus story can ONLY be composed AFTER the Fall of the Temple because the Jews and outsiders must NOT understand and perceive that Jesus was the Son of God and be Converted.

But wasn't Jesus a Jew and weren't his disciples Jews? Or are you just referring to the Jewish authorities who were collaborating with Rome?

As a mythical/fictional character, there would be no basis for saying who or what Jesus really was.

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

02-07-2013, 11:04 PM	#34
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	Is anyone here familiar with R.G.Price's work? If not, have a glance at this work. It's very interesting. I have the book here. http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

02-08-2013, 08:24 PM	#37
Onias Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Primary residence in New York State Posts: 231	A very interesting and illuminating thread! From this I can see that GMark was later redacted by Paulinists. The original 'Jesus', if he existed, was not intended to be a sacrificial lamb for the sins of humanity. It seems the other gospels that were written later included this Paullution from Pauline redactors, though I do notice one verse in John that seems to show the mission of Jesus was completed before he was crucified. John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.