Newton's Cat

The Gospel of Mark, as we have it today, is the product of a cunning and calculated alteration of an original text.

The original title was 'The Gospel of Jesus'

It began at verse 3:

'A voice of one crying in the desert ....'

Verses 6-8 were not in the original.

'Nazareth' was inserted into verse 9.

Verses 12 & 13 were added.

'... preaching the gospel of God' was added to verse 14.

Verse 15 was added.

Verse 16 was: 'And passing along beside the Sea of Galilee he saw ....', the text then continued with verse 19: '... James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother ....'

Simon, Andrew - the twelve disciples were NOT in the original text. The story was based upon GREEK mythology NOT Jewish.

In verse 24 '... the holy one of God...' was added.

Verse 29 read:

'And immediately they left the synagogue they went to the house OF HIM ...' --- "of him" was replaced by '... of Simon and Andrew with James and John.'

Verse 30 was:

'Now the mother-in-law OF HIM ...', not 'of Simon' --- this verse originally described him healing his OWN mother-in-law. He was a married man.

Verses 32-34 were added.

Verse 35 was followed by verses 40-42. Verses 36-39 were added.

Verse 43 was OBVIOUSLY added ...

... and so on throughout the whole of the gospel.

Whoever wrote the original text of Mark also wrote the first 17 verses of Romans. Someone turned the "hero" of Mark's gospel into Christ and inserted him into Paul's text to give the sense of Paul worshipping his own fictional character, which he had used to put across his ideas, as the God of the Jews.

Christianity is a sophisticated FRAUD. Paul got well and truly trumped!

Newton's Cat

To demonstrate the technique used by the creator of Christianity I'm working on the American Constitution - I'm gonna turn it into a convincing "sacred text" that calls upon the citizens of America to worship Allah as the only true God.

It shouldn't be too difficult.

bajan

Newton's Cat - please provide us with some sources and/or explanation of your method for arriving at your interpretation. Having read the bible I cannot say that anything is obvious at all.

Roger Pearse

May I ask what are your sources for these statements? (Because I don't suppose that you learned this by divine revelation? ) Is this the thesis of a book or something? If so, which book.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Newton's Cat

Mark 15,13-29

And they cried out again: Crucify him!
But Pilate said: What evil has he done?
And they cried out more: Crucify him!
So Pilate, resolving to do something sufficient to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas to them and sent Jesus to be crucified.
Then the soldiers led Jesus "into" (context: "out of sight") his palace, and the whole cohort were gathered and they put a purple robe on him and hailed him as King of the Jews.
And they impress into service as a messenger (aggareuousin) a certain passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus (this seems to be a reference to Simon bar Kochbar and his sons, c. 130 ad, the leaders of the revolt against the Romans), and they brought him to Golgotha (which is called 'The place of a skull' - a graveyard? Some reference to a place associated with Simon bar Kochbar?) and they gave him wine spiced with myrrh (embalming fluid - a soporific). Now it was the third hour (after sunset) and they crucified him, placing a sign on him which read: The King of the Jews.

Next morning:

And those passing by blasphemed him, wagging their heads and saying ...

(What they saw was a broken and bloodied body on the cross with a sign that read 'King of the Jews')

All I've done is remove the interpolations.

Despite the efforts of whoever altered the text the context of several of the original Greek words doesn't fit with what we have today - but makes perfect sense when the interpolations are removed.

The original text was written, I think, around 130 ad - the storyline was set a 100 years earlier. The earliest convincingly provable evidence for the existence of Christians is in the late 130s ad. It seems that the alteration of the original story was done within a few years of it being written.

I think that the original story was written to be performed as a political/satirical play - it was written for an intellectual audience and would have been understandable only to people with knowledge of current events.

This is entirely the product of my own observations - but others have, throughout history, "seen" what I "see" in the text (including Isaac Newton!) - that the text has been deliberately "corrupted" by very cunning hands.

Phlox Pyros

Many, here, are familiar with the actual "corruptions" in the Biblical text. Can you point out the "corruptions" you are referring to in a modern critical edition, and give evidence for why you think they should be wholly removed? Thanks.

By the way, p52 - a papyrus with the gospel of the book of John dates back to approximately 125 A.D. Since it is supposedly the most theologically developed of the gospels, it would be very very hard to imagine Mark dating as late as 130 A.D.

Phlox Pyros

Now, this interests me. Did Newton "see" your version, or did he know about corruptions in the text. This needs a little clarification, and I'd appreciate it if you'd link to or mention a source for this assertion. Thanks.

Vorkosigan

Phlox, recent redating places p52 after 150 and probably later. It is very compatible with Mark at 130 (which is where I happen to locate Mark).

Newton, what is your method of arriving at these corruptions?

Vorkosigan

Charles Wilson

Where did you get "Pilate" here? Pilate is an obvious addition to make the stories appear as if they were written in 30 - 33 CE.

Of course,the stories were written in 8 - 12 CE, everybody knows that.

ETC.!

Step back,take a deep breath, work the program...

CW

Roger Pearse

Which recent redating is this?

All the best,

Roger Pearse