stephan huller

And for those who say that it is mere 'speculation' that the Alexandrian Christians ever envisioned their 'Mark' as the Christ in the same way that the Marcionites apparently put forward their founder I don't know what to say. As the Alexandrians understand Mark to have sat in a throne and identify him repeatedly as the shepherd of their flock, the 'evangelist' who established the true gospel which is in turn the second Torah - it is difficult NOT TO see how all of this is messianic.

What stands in the way is all our tradition assumptions ACTIVELY PROMOTED BY A ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION that Mark was a wholly subordinate figure to Peter.

So perhaps the breakthrough can come for people when I spend the time to translate the various hymns written for Mark by various Coptic writers over the years. Severus of Al'Ashmunein points to the throne image associated with Mark in the Coptic tradition in order to emphasize his original messianic standing saying that the various Patriarchs of Alexandria who "sat upon his episcopal throne, one after another, each of them succeeding his predecessor; and thus all were his representatives, and the shepherds of his flock, and his imitators in his faith in Christ.”

Who is this Christ? As Severus again notes it might be Mark for he writes in his Homilies of St. Mark that "St. Mark the apostle and servant of Jesus Christ has appeared among all creatures like the mustard seed (which speaks the Gospel), which grows and becomes a huge tree, so that the birds come to rest on its branches and get away from his shadow, because, although our Lord Jesus Christ (may he be glorified!) have wanted to nominate himself for this comparison, however, can also apply the meaning to St. Mark, this shining light, for those who follow Christ are themselves Christs and other members of Christ." [Homily on St. Mark 1 p.7 translated from the French edition]

Why it is that we don't ask a tradition which claims to be totally devoted to Mark HOW TO INTERPRET HIS GOSPEL as opposed to a rival tradition which from the beginning tried to subordinate the Evangelist in order to bolster the standing of Peter.

What a surprise when we come away with the understanding that Mark was wholly devoted to a Christ named Jesus. What a surprise when we can't make sense of his gospel.

We're just falling into a trap, the same trap set up by people who claim that To Theodore is a 'fake' because it introduces ideas hostile to the tradition of the Church Fathers. What Church Fathers? What united Church are we talking about? Clement and Origen have been dropped from the canon of saints in our tradition. They never belonged in the fold to begin with. They secretly accepted another Christ beside Jesus from the very beginning.

Clivedurdle

All this secret knowledge is wonderfully gnostic and alexandrian..

The idea of a single gospel according to various witnesses makes me wonder maybe we are looking at a master work that was interpreted by various people who saw it.

So I thought I would google Seneca and Gnosticism and

http://www.jstor.org/pss/289564

And Seneca is a very interesting candidate with regard to political intrigue with the emperors... Seneca might very possibly put himself forward as the Christ, very well hidden by irony.