aa5874

But, this is so basic.

The author of gMark wrote a story AFTER the Fall of the Temple and people of antiquity BELIEVED it.

It appears that it was the gMark's story that was BELIEVED because it seemed to give a PLAUSIBLE explanation for the Fall of the Jewish Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem.

If Jesus was actually human he could NOT have performed a single miracle as described.

As a mere human, he could NOT have fed the hungry Jews, could NOT walk on water or Transfigure.

In gMark 2.23, the disciples of Jesus were so hungry and probably broke they were basically "stealing" corn from the corn fields.

It was the gMark story itself that appears to have been initially BELIEVED in antiquity and then ADDITIONS were made afterwards to include Universal Salvation and that Jesus was a Jewish Messiah.

Toto

Is this supposed to make a point? For approximately 1800 years the Christian church established the correct interpretation of Scripture, based on its dogmatic authority and the power of the allied secular kings who ruled by the grace of the Christian god. It is only in the past few centuries that anyone outside the church hierarchy has been able to read the Bible and try to understand what it actually means.

Bingo the Clown-O

Yea.

I know.

Who do you think you are typing too?

Some sort of clown or something?

Bingo the Clown-O

Maybe Jeremy Hilary Boob can shed some light on this compelling issue.

sotto voce

"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand that bother me.” Mark Twain

Bingo the Clown-O

Dude – it’s fiction. Jesus is Mark’s baby.

It’s not like Mark is sitting back wondering what qualities Jesus has. It like Mark is sitting back and giving Jesus the characteristics he wants to give him.

sotto voce

Mark sits back and lets people come to their own conclusions.

Like Jesus, as it happens.

Bingo the Clown-O

Was the author of Ezekiel 37 familiar with Hosea 6:1-3?

It looks to me like somebody combined these passages into a single idea: That the ‘Son of Man’ would raise a bunch of dead people on the third day.

stephan huller

But there is no 'like Jesus' because we know almost nothing substantial about Jesus outside of Mark's portrait of him - and the subsequent Catholic editorial redaction effort. It's like basing our knowledge about JFK from the Oliver Stone film. Yes, it would stand to reason to think that there was a historical person behind the portrait. However what was Mark's original portrait of Jesus? I am not so sure that we know that given the lengths to which Irenaeus 'corrects' those that use some other version of Mark to arrive at their heretical opinions. The information from the Philosophumena can also be used here as it complements Irenaeus's portrait of those who abuse Mark. Marcion it is said 'added' mystical details (Empedocles was widely regarded as a 'mystic') to Mark. Also Irenaeus takes issue with the ending of Mark implicitly by arguing that it is supposed to agree with the writings of the prophets (implying in my mind at least that the alternative heretical ending did not agree).

To this end we have a Catholic version of Mark which is plainly aware of a heretical version of the same text. The 'openness' of the interpretation may well have been the design of the Catholic redactor not Mark. As such the ambiguity here may well be uncharacteristic of Jesus uncharacteristic of Mark and only result from sabotage on the part of the founders of our ecumenical tradition - i.e. to make the text 'agree' with the emerging consensus of the 'great Church' in the third century.

sotto voce

But Mark's account of Jesus' character is precisely that he wanted to let people decide for themselves. They ran off and disobediently told others about him— except at the very end, when the penny dropped, and they realised what he was about. Irony. Not that Mark explicitly tells the reader that, of course.