Littlejohn

I have argued that the Gospel of Mark was the first canonical Gospel to be made, because when it came decided to give life to the Catholic-Christianity (around the 140 year), the material by composing such a gospel was to hand by the team of 'evangelists', as it was from several decades in the imperial archives, which such a team, sponsored by the Roman authorities of the time, certainly had free access.

However, this does not mean that Mark was the first to collect useful material about Jesus and his mother, because, almost certainly, to do what was the true Matthew (or whatever you called it in reality), which picked up his material (a collection of sayings or 'oracles' of Jesus, as described by Papias of Hierapolis) between 55 and 60 years, while Mark picked his around the 64 year. This is the real reason whereby some of the Catholic apologists, more informed than others, maintains that the first 'gospel' was that of Matthew!

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

aa5874

But, it is extremely difficult to know when the writing attributed to Mark was written if it was anonimous.

Justin Martyr claimed that the "Memoirs of the Apostles" was read in the churches when he was alive.

Now, the "Memoirs of the Apostles" did have a birth narative where Jesus was born in a cave and it can be shown that the absence of a birth narrative is not an indicator of priority.

Even Church writers and non-canonised writers after Justin did also write that Jesus was said to have been born in a cave even up to the 6th century.

Chili

The nativity scene is just an allegory that describes the innitial stage of awakening that can take place in the human and certainly is not contingent upon being part of the Gospel.

The only reason why both Matthew and Luke have one is to show the intricate details between reborn 'from below' and 'from above' wherein below ends in a tragedy and from above in a comedy, to say that in Luke and John Jesus goes to heaven and in Mt. and Mark's Jesus goes back to Galilee (and that would sure freighten the women who know better as they were never banned from Eden, except Magdalene who has never known Eden or the celestial light would have been with her when she arrived at the tomb).

Solo

This is because Mark uses Pauline maxims in what the Greeks call αλληγορια, a way of making puffed-up idiots go nuts when they see what appears to them as meaningless babble and can't figure out why other people think there is something in it.

So, for example, when Paul says: 'The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned' 1 Cr 2:14

it is obvious you would not see it as the reference that Mark's Jesus uses in αλληγορια, when he says:

'"To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables (i.e. the whole gospel); so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven." (4:11)

Get it ? Of course you don't get it , because if you did you would not hassle everyone here with your execrable inanities !

Jiri

aa5874

What sentence, what line, what phrase do you see in gMark that could have been only copied from ALL the Pauline writings?

No one has to go nuts or be an idiot to find a sentence, a line or a phrase in both gMatthew and gMark.

Why does one have to be an idiot and go nuts to see that gMark did NOT use the Pauline writings?

But, one does not have to be an idiot, go nuts or to be accused of excrable inanities to realize that Mark 4.11 was LIFTED from Hebrew Scripture, or the Septuagint.

Examine Isaiah 6. You don't get it? You don't have to go nuts.

I see Isaiah 6.9-10 as the source for Mark 4.11.

Please state a sentence, a line , a phrase in gMark that could have only been from the Pauline writings.

And no more excrable inanities from 2 Cor 2.14.

Chili

I actually thought that Mark was written for 'flat earthers" who are nuts to even worry about it.

Jane H

You raise some interesting points. Perhaps I could develop this with a few of my own?

It's technically a possibility, but what is your evidence for this?

The 'sell all you have and give to the poor' is very much specific to that person's situation- all financial states can enter the Kingdom of God (Mk 10:27). The moral point being that all possessions must be regarded as belonging to God.


I'm struggling a bit here. In what sense was Jesus the risen Lord before the crucifixion?

Mark 9:1 refers to the establishment of the new phase in eschatological history. Already existing in Jesus ministry, and established in his death and resurrection, the Kingdom of God will be obvious within a generation through the vindication of Jesus followers resulting from the destruction of Jerusalem. I'm pretty sure there was a church well before gMark, because the issue of Torah observance divided it deeply, and yet the need and desire to be united was shown in the collection of Paul for the poor of Jerusalem from the diaspora churches.

Surely Mark's Jesus is the man, who turns out to be on the divine side of the equation? The human suffering and death of Jesus are very much integral to Mark (10:32-34).

Regards.

aa5874

The crucifixion of Jesus in gMark had very little to do with the Salvation of Mankind. Salvation through the crucifixion was a LATER development after the so-called Synoptic Jesus failed to show up after the Fall of the Temple.

Examine the teachings of Jesus in gMark. There is nothing about SALVATION through the crucifixion or resurrection.

Mr 9:31 - Now, even BEFORE the so-called Markan was Jesus killed he FORGAVE the SINS of JEWS based ONLY on BELIEF.

SALVATION was obtained in gMark when a person BELIEVED JESUS was the TRUE MESSIAH and Son of God.

Examine Mark 2.5 In gMark as EARLY as the 2nd chapter, Remission of sins was gained through BELIEF but the CRUCIFIXION signified DESTRUCTION of Jerusalem with God's own Temple and then immediately after the END of the known world, the DAY of Judgment.

The JEWS would SUFFER at the HANDS OF their God for their rejection and crucifixion of God's son Jesus the Messiah.

The author of gMark is SIMPLY saying BELIEVE my Jesus story and you will be saved because there will soon be NO tomorrow. It will be JUDGMENT DAY.


These are the words of the AUTHOR of gMark. I repeat "the words of the AUTHOR"

Mr 13:31 - Well, at least the earth has NOT passed away but the author has.

Again, gMark is about SALVATION of JEWS through BELIEF and DESTRUCTION of JEWS through CRUCIFIXION.

Solo

A lot of it has to do with what I call 'Markan idiom'. If you accept, as I do, that the original Mark ended at 16:8, you will see that there is no reconciliation between Jesus and his earthly disciples. He tells them we will go before them to Galilee. Do they get there ? In the Markan version of the gospel, the disciples do not accept the cross and scatter before the passion. I.e. they are not really followers of Christ, as per Paul's catechism written into Mark (8:34, 15:21). It is very difficult to accept then, that as of Mark's writing, the different constituents of the church-to-be had singular vision on:

1) Jesus' messianic status and function,
2) the meaning of the cross,
3) his Davidic connection,
4) the nature of resurrection.

Hard to speak of a single church under such cirumstances.

There is also visible dislike of the Mark to the 'historical witness of Jesus'. The disciples are not just incomprehending dunces, but positively inferior characters morally - i.e. they are portrayed as 'faithless'

This is a difficult issue: Paul's morality on which Mark's Jesus built was maximalist. It prescribed a code of conduct which knew no middle ground between godliness and ungodliness. Paul does not say; enjoy the pleasures of life that are given to you by God, but enjoy them wisely. Do not allow passions to become your master. No, Paul, says it would be best between now and the coming of judgment not to have sex at all. The asceticism of Paul and Mark's Jesus condemns the world in which we live. And that is the problem. No 'useful' ethics can come out of that.

Paraphrasing Duerrenmatt: Paul, Mark and their Jesus could love no-one, only humanity.

The spirit that descends on Jesus after baptism is the Christ. In Mark, the Jesus who teaches and heals is the Pauline Spirit of the risen Lord. It is not the comings and goings of the historical Galilean preacher that the Nazarenes venerated (as apostle, Hbr 3:1). It is to this Jesus-as-the Holy Spirit that Mark claims he has access. In the key verses of the gospel:

4:10 And when he was alone, those who were about him with the twelve asked him concerning the parables.

(Get this ? When he was alone (!!!) , those who were around him, asked him.....i.e. those who had access to him through the Spirit, not the Twelve)

4:11 And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables;

everything, means everythying ....the whole gospel is an allegory

4:12 so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven."

and the reason it is given as allegory, is because only those who are 'faithful' will get the meaning (will have the gnosis) of the gospel.

So, Mark really does not have to do any post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus (the idea would be preposterous to him), because the whole time the spirit of the Risen is in Jesus (as it was in Paul, or as it is in Mark).

What is your assurance that the Jerusalem 'Judaizers' in fact believed in Jesus' resurrection from the dead ? If Mark is the first gospel and it shows no physical 'appearance' of Jesus after his death, what is the evidence that it existed before an unknown interpolator inserted this testimony into Paul (1 Cr 15:3-11) and Matthew corrected Mark's ending ?

Now if the Torah observances deeply divided Paul from the Nazarenes, what is the warranty that Paul who said there was only one gospel, and that gospel was his, would have any truck with them ?

Oh, yes - the collections ! The funny thing about the collections is that they are made for 'the poor' (Gal 2:10), presumably the same beneficiaries as in the collections 'for the poor saints' (εἰς τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῶν ἁγίων ) in Rom 15:26. You will see that this verse is mysteriously mistranslated by the majority of the NT renditions as 'the poor among the saints'. I am sure you can quickly see the nature of the problem. If the Gal 2:10 and Rom 15:26 reference the same group - as I am pretty certain they do - "the pillars" are logically excluded from belonging to "the saints". So the pillars are reminding Paul to remember the saints - not themselves - who are only "seemingly" the pillars. So Paul, if he was eager to support the Jerusalem saints, was probably also eager to meet with them, and in that he was evidently prevented (Gal 2:4-5) when visiting Jerusalem.
In short, my reading of the collections testifies to Paul eagerness to meet with the "top leaders" in Jerusalem (i.e. James the Just !!!) who he believed would be favourably inclined to his gospel if given the opportunity to present it without interference from the 'false brethren'. In Galatians, he only meets with the "so-called pillars" (Cephas and the Zebedees) who apparently collect for the church in missions themselves, and subsequent to an agreement with Paul, do mischief in Paul's missionary territory.

I know this is a difficult part. It is not that Mark is indifferent to the suffering of the human Jesus, quite the contrary. His choice of Psalm 22:1 for Jesus last articulate cry from the cross is quite deliberately heart-rending 'in-your-face' to God, to make the redemption to which he pledged Jesus stick.

But, I showed you that Mark declares the gospel to be an allegory to all but those who received their gnosis through faith. Other than the scriptures, including Paul, the Holy Spirit is Mark's only connection to Jesus. There is no other testimony involved, least of all Peter's, as far as I can see.

It is hard to understand the original Pauline mindset because it was much tampered with by the later teachings of the church. Jesus, to Paul and Mark was a nobody from some Galilean backwater, whom God chose for his salvation plan...could have been you, could have been me, could have been anyone who appears weird and psycho, to the wise and mighty in this world. But they knew different: God's grace belongs to everyone; the Spirit can transform anyone.

Best,
Jiri

show_no_mercy

How do you figure that's a mistranslation? "The saints" is in plural genitive; "the poor" is not. It's in plural accusative. It reads as though "the poor" belong to "the saints". So "the poor among the saints" seems to be the accurate translation.

Is the Greek wrong?