aa5874

You are merely inventing and then claiming to have some personal SUPERIOR understanding of gMark.

You really have ZERO corroboration for your inventions.

gMark is EXTREMELY easy to understand.

1. In gMark, Jesus WANTED the Jews to REMAIN in Sin.

2. It was PETER who first told the disciples that Jesus was the Messiah.

3.. Jesus did NOT WANT the disciples to tell any one he was the Messiah.

4. Jesus did NOT start any new religion under the name of Christ.

5. There was ANOTHER person who was called CHRIST when Jesus was unknown as Christ.

6. Jesus WALKED on sea water and Transfigured.

7. Jesus died ABANDONED, Denied and Rejected by his own disciples and the Jews..

8. The body of Jesus was missing and the visitors fled and said Nothing to anyone.

gMark is just a basic Myth fable that people of antiquity BELIEVED.

Iskander

“And none but you shall understand the true thing that it tells—
Of what colossal gods of shame could cow men and yet crash,
Of what huge devils hid the stars, yet fell at a pistol flash.
The doubts that were so plain to chase, so dreadful to withstand—
Oh, who shall understand but you; yea, who shall understand?”


G K Chesterton
The man who was Thursday,

Solo

The alignment here is between what Paul and Mark's Jesus say about signs (semeia). Paul's reference is Deu 13:1-3, which admonishes against seeking signs (and wonders) from prophets. It was considered bad form to tempt God. So, yes it would be possible to cut Paul out of the picture if there was only that to consider. But the themes from Paul, as you can see, permeate Mark's gospel throughout.

Paul openly derogates to the beliefs in the objective reality of miracles. Speaking specifically about the miraculous power of 'tongues', which was apparently the rage at Corinth in his time and which Acts 2 insist was at the very founding of the of the church in Jerusalem, Paul says it was a childish belief (1 Cr 13:11). So, it is evident from Paul's letters that the some of the Jewish messianists believed that in the ecstasies they experienced and when they became (medically speaking) glossolalic, they actually spoke languages that others could understand and that this was a special faculty given to them by God (and later, by Christ). Some of the people in the churches invoking Jesus then believed in the reality of the miracles. The tradition of the Pentecost event of Acts 2 maintains that the miracle of the tongue-speaking was "available" to the onlookers who were not in raves. Several thousands apparently were persuaded to join with Peter's friends on the spot.

Paul speaks hypothetically about an event where everyone in church speaks in tongues and outsiders enter, saying that the outsiders would think of the participants as mad (1 Cr 14:23). Would Paul say that if he knew there was just such an event at Pentecost ?

If this belief was then rampant after Jesus' death it is hard to credit that Jesus denounced it and saw in it trickery of the Pharisees. Paul's letters tell us there were several standards by which the assemblies operated.

Mark's account of Jesus follows Paul's emphasis on faith over law, faith over gnosis (hence the open ending of Mark), and the faith in the redemptive power of suffering over the traditional belief in messianic triumph on earth. That is why I think a number of the new Christian traditions that can be traced to OT passages or images, actually had a check-point in Paul who gave them new contexts.

There seem to be several items here. It may be a moot point to some whether the appellation “Father” was meant to signify a belief of Jesus that in being special he was exclusively special, if you know what I mean. I would prefer to think he was not. It seems clear that Paul’s use of the Aramaic word here point to a traditional appellation shared among the messianic ecstatics. Did it come from a historical Jesus ? Or was it a group tradition which gave rise to later gospel creativity ? I prefer the latter. Paul’s “Abba, Father !” is a cry of group of believers who received God’s son in their hearts (Gal 4:6) and denotes no special privilege on the part of any of them.

Second, the question here (in this OP) is whether the key verses 4:10-12 support the view that Mark is an allegory, and whether him being “alone” signifies he was being addressed spiritually by Mark’s church or actually by his disciples. So, if the “Abba, Father” is part of the story – which it clearly is – then the question remains ? Is the story allegorical rendering of key Pauline teachings (possibly with historical anchors) or is it history which has not much to do with Paul – as he came later ?

Third, if I could apologize for Mark’s treatment of Jesus’ mother, I would, but unfortunately I can’t. Men generally, in most cultures, are emotionally separated from their mothers when they enter as adults into ‘male societies’. They retain fondness for, and an emotional harbour in their moms, but they are just not taking them as counsel. Sure, there may be the occasional Arapesh, but the long house is the rule. Men will look to other males for models, and the relationship with Father is key. Jesus’ business on the cross is an anguished cry to the one who called him, at a moment when all seems lost. Mother unfortunately cannot help in that.

To Mark, Jesus was not an omnipotent deity. (You want some of that nonsense, read John. He'll do it for you. ) He was a human touched – in a maddening sort of way – by God. The resolution of the man-God conflict is left entirely to the receiver of the gospel. What do you want to believe ? You only get from Mark that Jesus of Nazareth died in weakness.


I am sure you'll get more confident as you read more and relate it to what you know of life. As for the lack of references, remember, Mark was writing a mystery.

I suggest looking at Paul and Mark as the composers for the church to come, not members of the choir of an existing church.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

I suggest you LOOK at the written evidence.

Galatians 1:13 - Paul is claiming to be a WITNESS of EXISTING CHURCHES.

Please, I beg of you. FIRST Look at the written evidence.

The written evidence CONTRADICTS your imagination.

Paul claimed he was LAST in a list of over 500 people to SEE the resurrected Jesus.

Solo

No, it does not. Even if Paul wrote that verse of Galatians, and I would not be the first one to doubt that, Gal 1:13 in no way contradicts what I said.
Paul could have persecuted the church and still be its first composer after his conversion.

There is not one respected scholar in the field who believes as you do on the efidence of Irenaeus that Paul read Luke, or that his teachings were informed by any of the gospels that later became canon. So spare me the hysterical remonstrations, will you ?

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Why don't you read Galatians CHAPTER 1 and 2?

It is completely illogical that Paul could be the first composer of the Church when he claimed that he persecuted an ALREADY COMPOSED Church and that he did go to Jerualem and was COMMISSIONED by the ALREADY COMPOSED Church to preach to the Gentiles.

Galatians 1Paul was unknown to the Churches in CHRIST of Judea.

Paul could NOT have composed the CHURCHES in Christ of Judea that he persecuted.


Spare me your hysterical "appeal to authority". You are promoting logical fallacies and propaganda.

You very well know that Scholars have argued that the Pauline writings are all AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

Solo

One of things which are not explicable if one holds onto the idea that Jesus was talking to his disciples in Mk 4:10-12 (and please note that Jesus says explicitly unto you it has been given, i.e. the knowledge of the secret has been passsed already !) that they should have been fould to have their hearts hardened later, in 6:52, 8:17. They suffer from the condition described in by Isa 6:9-10.

I think the verses from Paul that inspired the puzzling ruling of Jesus in Mark are:

2 Cr 3:13-14 not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not see the end of the fading splendor. But their minds were hardened (επωρωθη τα νοηματα αυτων); for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.

Best,
Jiri

JoeWallack

Solo


JW:
You are right of course Solo, but it needs to be better demonstrated. Hawkins demonstrated the Synoptic Solution and hundreds of years later it is now accepted. I have demonstrated the Simontic Solution but it is not yet accepted by the Masses. "Mark" has a primary theme of discrediting the Disciples at the Text level and using these negative formulas to instruct the Readers at the Sub-text level. "Matthew"/"Luke" convert the primary theme to crediting the Disciples and exorcising the Sub-text but they still have to use "Mark" as a base since it is Impossible to have historical witness to the Impossible. The subject of this Thread is a Steven Avery type case book study of their "solution":

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_4

JW:
Of course we have to look at the original language textual criticism, right Solo, but there is older textual evidence than the extant manuscripts of "Mark":

http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-5g.htm

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_13

Note that "Matthew", presumably the earliest witness to "Mark", has exorcised the problem identified in this Thread ("alone" and "not the disciples"):

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Luke_8

Likewise "Luke" (with Apologies to "Mark" GoodAcre, taking this as any type of agreement against "Mark" is nonsense since we have an explanation for it with scope).

Note especially the timing of the pheneumona of this Thread:

Here we have the cross section of non-twelve (Readers) and the Key to understanding Jesus. Quite a coincidence. Clearly "Matthew"/"Luke" threshold for crediting the Disciples could not stand 4:10. The combination of
"Matthew"/"Luke's" reaction and timing of the offending verse makes it unlikely that further analysis is going to undo the likely conclusion of intentional fiction here which will make a fine addition to my:

Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fiction In The Original Gospel

Next we need to do our due diligence and look for Textual variation in "Mark" here.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874

You are DEAD wrong about gMark and Paul.

You showed PRECISELY that Mark 10-14 was from ISAIAH 6 but you LEFT out the eleventh verse.

Examine Isaiah 6:9-11 The Markan Jesus SPOKE in Parables to MAKE sure that the words of the Prophet Isaiah was FULFILLED.

The Markan Jesus SPOKE in Parables to KEEP the Jews UNCONVERTED until their cities were DESTROYED and the people and land desolate.

On the day Jesus was crucified in gMark the Jews did NOT understand a single Parable of Jesus.

No VEIL was taken away by Jesus in gMark as found in 2 Cor 3.14.

In gMark, Jesus MADE sure that the VEIL REMAINED by speaking in Parables and DECEIVED the Jews with the GOOD NEWS of the kingdom of heaven.

The Markan Jesus story is a REPEAT of Isaiah 6.9-13.

It was AFTER the Fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple that the Jews EYES were opened.

Isaiah 6.11 The Pauline writings and 2 Cor.3.14 CONTRADICT the words of the Prophet in Isaiah 6.9-11.

The Markan Jesus story is NOT at all from the Pauline writings.

Solo

Nor will it be; the existence of the masses is simply proof that stupidity is contagious

Seriously, though, I don't think anything concerning the scripture, and Mark especially, can be demonstrated to a degree where the Magisterium will be shamed into substantially changing the doctrine. You and I know that the abrupt ending of Mark is authentic and the SE and LE are not. We also know that to accept the disciples were not told about Jesus rising until Matthew contradicted Mark on that point some fifty years later (technically, the interpolator of 1 Cor 15:3-11 was the first), means that no appearances of dead Jesus was part of the Easter events, that is, if there were Easter events. But the church could never admit to this because it would terminally compromise itself.

That is my reading except I am led to believe that Mark targets three audiences:

1) the internal Paulinist mystics, who understand the allegory - to whom it has been given;

2) the Petrine gospel perverters who are to repent and be saved by the cross of Paul, and

3) the scribes and Pharisees whose 'expertise' in law Mark derogates to by affecting simpleton narration, barbarous Greek, and meshugah readings/referencing of the tanakh (1:2, 2:26, 10:19). I consider the 2:26 also suspect as 1 Sa 22:20 where Abiathar is son Ahimelech contradicts 2 Sa 8:17, 1 Chron 24:6 where Ahimelech is the son of Abiathar. Based on the other, more glaringly intentional, errors, I would say that Mark subbed Abiathar for Ahimelech in a known incident to point out the discrepancy, and provoke a goose-chase debate on who was the father of who and the priest in David's time.

In playing the fool for the Pharisees, Mark, illustrates Paul's 1 Cr 1:20-21:

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.


We should, but then again since God made foolish the wisdom of this world, maybe we should have a beer instead.

Which reminds me: how was Vienna ?

Best,
Jiri