Chili

Good for him but tragic for the guy who he left behind, for whom the entire event must have been horrible at best.

If logos is in seeing the sighted it stands in need of reference, as in sighting land from the crowsnest, shall we say, that must come to the fore.

So now then, if crucifixion made the sighter see (with the human condition gone), it is powerless with him gone as if only an illusion is what he saw, for insight here now is not in sighting but in 'seeing the sighter see' the logos that he is IN the error that he was, wherefore then reason must prevail or there will be another Essene gallivanting about without a home in the [now] New Jerusalem, that the Greeks called Elysian Field, where he likely occupies the basement of his own shithouse as hermit now.

So when Mark remove Judaism from the act he can succeed, to say that it is prior to us by nature, but without a home to put a shine on him his desert will be glorified but remains a desert just to the same. I.e. the color of gold must be known before base metal can be turned to gold.

To 'see the sighter see' is equal to being the source of fire that in the particular (inside the ousia) is why "the bapited were baptizing more than the baptizer" as that is how fire spreads, which here now means omniscience is real by the sheer force of logos as seer in itself (and yes, he is a him).

Chili

To make this easier to follow let me change this paragraph for clarity:

"wherefore then reason must prevail or there will be another Essene gallivanting about without a home that the Greeks called Elysian Field, where he likely occupies the basement of his own shithouse as a hermit now.

Opposite this is with a home, the [now] New Jerusalem welcomes him as dapper Jesus with not just one, but two donkey's under him, presenting both the Old and the New, transformed now, and radiant in all directions that translates into omniscience.

"Seeing the sighter see" is better than "to see the sighter see" as 'to see' contains the qualifier as 'not yet' as in 'to be,' while in reality it is seeing the fulness of the entire trinity in motion as the [infallible] leading edge where life itself is at, and thus sickness is no more.

. . . and "yes, it is a him" means that truth was prior and therefore is greater, such as wherein trees walk like men, but as the son it is a him.

Tommy

I read through the NIV translation of GMark yesterday (skipping the contradictory longer ending) and noted the following:

• Jesus is presented as an annointed shaman with an esoteric, apocalyptic, sin-fixated temperament who doesn't seem to mind being misuderstood by pretty much everyone.
• He typically self-describes as the "Son of Man" (NB no mention made of his being literally the child of a virgin and the Holy Ghost).
• JtB, who is described preaching "baptism of repentence for the forgeiveness of sins", identifies Jesus as doing the same but with the Holy Spirit who He receives at baptism. So, personal repentence = forgiveness of sins. Jesus' death and rising meanwhile is presented as fulfiment of prophesy (including his own) and possibly as an example of repentence ("take up his cross and follow me", Mark 8:34). In this light the "give his life" in 10:45 could refer to his career - i.e. "I gave the best years of my life to serving my country".
• The Son is lesser then the father (14:32) and seems to have only finite powers (5:30, 6:5) - almost like a specially blessed creation of God rather than a full incarnation.
• Jesus tells grateful folk not to follow him (5:19) rather than encouraging people to leave their families.
• The death of the Son was due to greed/sin (12:8).
• Duties toward loving God have priority (!) over loving thy neighbour as yourself (i.e. not necessarily more so) (12: 29-31).
• The best action is in chapter 6.

So Jesus death not itself a sacrafice remitting sin and no effort by Jesus to establish a movement once he's gone. A couple of mysteries remain:

• Who was the book written for? Jewish custom that would be known to any Jew, Samaritan or local gentile is elucidated (14:12) suggesting a gentile audience outside of Judea. However Jesus is reported as describing gentiles as the Jews' "dogs" to a needy gentile (8:27) and much space is given to predictions of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (why should gentiles care about that?).
• When was it written? Jesus ties his prediction of the destruction of the temple with prophesies of His return only a little late ("in those days, following that distress", 13:24). Well, the temple was destroyed but the return hasn't happened so either this is a mistaken prophesy or the book was produced (either cynically or based on a distant memory) at the time of the fall of the Temple to publicize an imminent apocalypse and encourage repentence.

The key words in the book seem to be "repent" and "sin".

Chili

Typical 'look-alike' from Rev. 13:11-14.

And the 'material man' who thinks about physically parting with family instead of working out your own salvation first. Shift in priorities of mind.

Just like the 'birds of the sky' instead of 'birds of the air' and the musterd plant that give shade to them.

Repent and belief is also backwards as it should be believe and repent.

Just in idiot is all he is: Material Mark who hasn't got a clue.

angelo

Yet the thick disciples still didn't know who or what this character was. Isn't it amazing that not one survivor or descendent of these very thick as bricks disciples ever went on to leave a memoir of their time with the messiah.

Chili

It is such a comedy to write that he never explained his parables to anyone except his own disciples. A comedy? A satire even and a slam against the early Church to show that there was a need for Luke and John.

It means that he was witch brewing his own recipes in private. Understand here that his disciples were his strongholds, insights, ousia's or forms as Plato called them. It is these shepherds that were out of oder taking turns herding sheep at night to say that Joesph was 'beyond theolgy' when this happened . . . and then when they looked in to see they understood!

There just is no way to read it any other way.

Can you see shepherds-on-the run in this? (remember they are insights).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholia_I

Tommy

Your parables leave the reader as confused as those in shorter GMark.

angelo

From "Who Wrote The New Testament?" By Burton L. Mack

aa5874

Based on the excerpt From "Who Wrote The New Testament?" Burton L. Mack it does not seem that he understands that the plot in the short gMark was dramtically altered when the 12 VERSES were added in the Long gMark chapter 16.

The post-resurrection visit and the Commission to preach the Gospel by the resurrected Jesus of long Mark virtually destroyed the plot of the short gMark author.

The author of the short gMark claimed Jesus referred to Peter as SATAN.

Mark 8 In the short gMark the very disciples of Jesus ABANDONED his teachings.

[Mark 8
The disciples did NOT follow the teachings Jesus when he was arrested.

They did NOT take up their crosses. They Fled to Save their Lives, Peter was ASHAMED of Jesus when he denied him and Judas betrayed Jesus.


Mark 14 Mark 14 The short gMark Jesus story is NOT about Salvation by Sacrifice but that the Jews and even the disciples of Jesus Rejected Jesus as the the Son of God.

Chili

But Peter is faith, and faith is the enemy of liberty and is the last one to overcome.

His disciple were his strongholds, in faith, and so must be on board until the very end, instead of trailing him like a pack of shy dogs, saying wtf is going on with him?

That is why I call him material Mark who has't got a clue.

In other words, if his disciples were is 12 ousia's they must be the pillars of faith 'of and in' the final stand that yields par-ousia.

The missing link of Mark was 'the faith' wherein they stand united so it will bind them as the twelve who's origin is the same for knowledge to accumulate to be the crown of victory, instead of scatter and crash the crown instead.

Mark is so simple and a simpleton he was.