Chili

Very perceptive maryhelena, and there were two Gospel stories, but only one with a Cana event where the new wine is better than the old, this time with age, that were like 500 witnesses with Paul when he was crucified, as number in years to expose his 1000 year reign that flows like living water to him from deep within his own soul. They 'thus' will be set free as if captive they were in his own netherworld where he kicked out the bastards that did not belong (Plato's untied knowledge as data), and only invited those who belonged that so really is his own New Jerusalem to unfold, wherein also Nazareth is the part of him that got him thusfar where Mary was from. So Nazareth is faith that is based on tradition that accumilates to create the rising action in life as it is.

It so is that the prayer of Zecharaih in full assembly during the incense hour (also known as tithing), was answered here, and those who belonged as his own were invited in to celebrate, and not just as guests, but with purpose to be retained so that reason prevails while in the absense of reason itself = beyond theology, wherefore then, Capernaum was not part of it.* Then if you take boisterous Mark with a promise to unfold, it is obvious that he was not undergoing the event himself, as the Son of Man could not without a home of his own and no prayer assembly in force that makes Capernaum uphill even so he can just slide down into a Jerusalem of his own.

That is why those Hail Mary's are many to add indulgence-by-force enmass that so makes Rome uphill to them. In essence this diminishes the Son of Man while it increases the Son of God in proportion as destined 'to be,' so that unfolding may occur here now as invited guests at Cana that Mark is clueless about.

Mark is a salvation recipe with potential for all, but without an end in itself. Mark missed the mark as the promise to unfold was to unfold unto him so that his own world can be the reign of God that he was looking for.

To note here is that the "death and rising dimension" is like a 'tempest' to him without direction, and really is why Jesus was not pouring the wine in Cana himself, and Mary was still the woman to him while in the cradle of Judaism itself, such beautiful lines that they are.

In the end, then, the death and rising action may hold the crisis moment, but only is there to make the netherwolrd known where the difference between comedy and tragedy is brought to bare, and either on to Jerusalem or back to Galilee he will go.

* This line just means that it was a non-rational event also known as 'faith in the heart.'

Chili

But that is not true. All Mark is saying is not to look for deeper meanings as the world is still flat, such as in MK 4:32 where he made it clear that 'birds of the air' in the mustard seed parable really means 'birds of the sky,' and that a mustard plant is a good place for birds to make a nest in the shade on the ground. It's so funny to read Mark.

outhouse

Your so far off its not even funny bud.

Its a parable that uses the mustard plant as a metaphor for the movement.

Back then the plant was a evasive weed that one could not control easily.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable...e_Mustard_Seed

Some have identified a "subversive and scandalous"[6] element to this parable, in that the fast-growing nature of the mustard plant makes it a "malignant weed"[6] with "dangerous takeover properties".[6] Pliny the Elder, in his Natural History (published around AD 78) writes that "mustard… is extremely beneficial for the health. It grows entirely wild, though it is improved by being transplanted: but on the other hand when it has once been sown it is scarcely possible to get the place free of it, as the seed when it falls germinates at once."[9]

Ben Witherington notes that Jesus could have chosen a genuine tree for the parable, and that the mustard plant demonstrates that "Though the dominion appeared small like a seed during Jesus' ministry, it would inexorably grow into something large and firmly rooted, which some would find shelter in and others would find obnoxious and try to root out."[7]

Chili

You make it better yet, to actually analize the plant. The reign of God is the issue here, that from a very smal seed known, like mustard, will grow big so that suffering souls can find refuse in it.

'Birds of the air' are not mating couples, but those who suffer as victims of life as it is. The nature of the reign of God is in giving without receiving and only then is it possible to give to 'the birds of the air' from the heart.

The basis for this is that man in his genus is animal, and inside the reign of God the individual man is distinguished above all and becomes its servant and slave.

So, whereas at one time humans are a slave to the particular ideal that they have mastered, in the reign of God they will have mastered not just their ideal, but their whole being as man now in the image of God and so become a slave to the world as it is.

Edit to add: This topic is not easy and you will not find it in Aristotle either, but is in Plato's "Sophists" who in their greatness are still set apart as imitators in the same way as theologians must necessarily be imitators as well.

To summarize his procedure to arrive there, we journey from 'insight to insight' (from ousia to ousia) and see the 'glow' of each, and once we have exhausted all 12 we find will not yet another idea with a glow but arrive in the matter itself, that he calls "parousia in Being" . . . and so then the halo is ours.

outhouse

Chili

while I respect your knowledge of philosophy, I dont find your personal interpretation in context. I believe you have gone into more detail then intended.

Chili

I agree, and my add on was there only to show that there is reality behind myth. I used Plato, not to complicate things but to show 'his way,' and noted that this was beyond Aristotle to speak on the calibre only. I have some knowledge of Greek, but not much.

I do find it appropriate in this tread to identify Paul in contrast with Mark.

outhouse

There is a contrast with the unknown author/authors of Mark VS then paul and the unknown writers of his later epistles.

Later time period as well as the downfall of Judaism as everyone knew.


Paul was creating, Gmark was furthering.

Chili

Of course Paul was forming* the New Way that became known the New Testament for that reason, and Mark was furthering the error that caused the temple to fall.

Nothing has changed and that is why Peter moved to Rome and crowned Mary instead of Jesus as queen of the New Heaven and Earth. And so a new age began.

Read John 6 on this again and again, if that is what it takes, and never study the author if his words are beyond comprehension, as if he was the mustard plant to be examined that really should have been a tree used in the parable to make it big enough that we might understand.

It is called 'ad vericundiam' wherein we pay reverence to Authority simply because we do not know, and so what Einstein said must be true, while we do not even know who wrote the damn thing.

And of course we will never know because nobody would put his name under it, since Mark is the High School whore of deceit, stacked with what was known as Paralogism from beginning to end (outside talk).

The tools the ancients used for this where known as "the original six tricks."

1. Homonymity, one word with more than one meaning.
2. Amphiboly, that we call syntax
3. Synthesis, compressing parts of the sentence to alter its meaning
4. Diairesis, separating elements to alter its meaning
5. Prosody, make slight variations in pronunciation or spelling
6. Lexischemy, the grammatical shape of the talk (words used) suggest wayward meanings by analogy.

Easy to see, easy to follow, we know them so well, as if speech is given to hide man's innermost secret thoughts. And so reader beware . . . and that already begins when you see a Hebrew walk in dressed in a camelhair coat, as if we really need to pay attention when we read Mark.

*Actually, the NT was created in Luke, formed in John and made manifest by Paul.

outhouse

No, nothing further from reality then this statement.

the zealot movemet was in Judaism, and that was responsible for the temples fall.


The NT was written by and for Romans.


False

Luke used the Roman foundation Gmark laid.




You can throw Gjohn out the window as far as im concerned. To late to pull anything useful from. I know there are parts with historicity, but not enough to bother with.

And it you claim Luke, you might as well claim Luke/Acts together


What we are left with is Pauline christianity who's foundation grew before others furthered their own opinions through mythology.

Chili

And who do you think zealots were other than Galileans?

And why was Mark so eager to get back there, as he had already told them that he was going there again, and that precisely is what freightened the women. Fact is that Mark nor the zealots knew what crucifixion is all about.Mark went back to Galilee, remember? and Luke would call that hell until he dies nonetheless.

The Acts is what Galilee was all about, and is what Paul wrote his censorship on.

And Paul laid the foundation for the Catholic Church and that is not Christain at all. I.e. Catholics are sinners, right? with confessionals to prove that, right?

And Catholics are not saved, right? and so not saved-sinners for sure!