MrMacSon

I think he uses the phrase "shorter gMark" for Mark 16:1-8. i.e. gMark is the gospel called Mark.

To me it seems like the shorter gMark (Mark 16:1-8) was an initial story to which bits were added, and other versions of the story, like Matthew & Luke, were developed from it.

It all seems to be myth.


Essentially. It was supported by Constantine. There were lots of messianic messages at the time - Arianism was one that was supposedly discussed by Constantine's Council of Nicea.

wordy

So if I look up the Gospel of Mark tomorrow
I have to go to sleep now instantly sorry
then aa wants us to see gMark as what?

Is that the real Jesus taht lived or is that Jesus
a myth but a myth too restricted for the church?

so they added the 16:9 - 19 for to send out people
to witness and get supporters?
good night everybody

angelo

I once had that thrown at me by a certain Tim O'Neil when I mentioned the silence of Philo about Jesus of Nazareth. His response was: "why should Philo write about a little known figure of that time?
My response that it's a "lame duck excuse" means just that. A lame duck [lamb?] excuse waiting to be slaughtered.

tanya

Hi Angelo,

1. Philo wrote on many, many topics, and knew lots of folks in Jerusalem, especially at the temple, so his silence on Jesus is noteworthy, regardless of complaints from the peanut gallery.

2. How likely is it that a guy who accomplished the feats proclaimed in the bible would have been "little known" in 50 CE? He would have been a superstar. He would have been mobbed with requests to cure diseases and illnesses of all sorts. Entire cities would have had huge demonstrations. Riots would have erupted. The Roman Army would have been called upon to restore order, and the Prefect would have ordered arrests, imprisonments, and documented responses to the unrest. We do have such records. They date however, from three decades later, 69-74 CE, a full generation after the Jesus story.

3. The more important authors, in my opinion, are the Roman historians/biographers, of the first and second century, who are largely silent regarding Jesus. There are a couple of modest dimension references in their various compositions, a sentence or two, thought to have been inserted, centuries later, by scribes or their employers. Even if, however, the ink had been applied directly by Tacitus, Suetonius, or Josephus, themselves, the substance of the casual comments in their respective papyri is inadequate to account for the miracles claimed to have been performed in the gospels. Their accounts are disproportionately minimal, compared with the magnitude of the claim, by the 4th century authors, regarding the dimensions and capacity of the nascent Christian church, at the turn of the second century CE.

4. By way of comparison, here is the English translation of Cassius Dio's history of Boudicca, the female British general who defeated the Roman 9th legion in 60 CE.
So, point is, historians of that era, were not unaware of various political figures, including those of gender, or ethnicity, or language, different from their own. Those ancient historians were not unwilling to expose actions which could have been viewed by some as a source of embarrassment to the Roman Empire. That Cassius Dio, Δίων ὁ Κάσσιος , (150-235) makes NO mention of Iesous, is therefore significant. Ditto for Plutarch, (45-120 CE).

aa5874

Tim O'Neil does not know what he is talking about.

Philo was supposedly a contemporary of Paul who went "all over" the Roman Empire since 37-41 CE telling people in major cities of the Roman Empire of a Messianic ruler and Son of God called Jesus who actually Resurrected and was a Sacrificial Lamb for the Remission of Sins for All mankind.

If there was an historical Jesus and Paul really travelled "all over" the Roman Empire and wrote letters to Churches about the Son of God then Jesus could NOT have been a little known figure in the time of Philo.

angelo

Enough there for Philo to write a sentence at least. But there were other writers in the first century who also left us many stories of that era, none mentions a Jesus of Nazareth.
Seems suspect that Constantine's friend and mentor Eusebius had his quill well and truly in the ink pot.

aa5874

Philo even wrote about a Crazy Man named Carabbas but wrote NOTHING of Jesus, the Messianic ruler, who was believed to be the Son of God.

If a Crazy Man was more well known that Jesus the Son of God and Messianic ruler then Jesus must have been born of the DEAD or the Son of a Ghost.

Philo's Flaccus Look at it right there in the Canon.

Jesus was Born of the DEAD.

Colossians 1:18 KJV

wordy

One possible reading of such a translation would be like this

Teh church is born from the sacrifized dead of our Jesus Christ
for the Church to have the authority that we give it?
Without God incarnating to go through humiliating death
the Church would not have the authority it now have
due to that act of faith of Jesus in his God the Father.


I guess one would have to know the original intent of the writer
the translators may have messed up the grammar?
I only wild guess but it sounds like that was the intent with that text
to say that through the death he could fulfill the purpose.

Another way to read it is to realize that Constantine could
spin it that way to be the head engineer of the coming Church?

Another possible reading if they really mean the Dead is
to realize that the way many thought at that time was that
Jesus was of Eliah or Isaiah and other such prophets so
them dead Jesus somehow being send by God to do their
work now in this time. fulfilling same role. So first born of dead
could refer to the now dead succession of dead prophets

aa5874

My argument is that the short gMark is the earliest book of the Canon and it is well supported by the evidence.

When the short gMark was composed the Jesus story of a Son of God called Jesus, the Sacrificial Lamb of God was previously unknown and there was NO Jesus cult at that time who worshiped a crucified and resurrected man as a God.

Essentially, if the short gMark was NOT composed there probably would not have been any Jesus cult.

It is imperative that the short gMark be thouroughly understood because it is the ONLY writing in the Canon that is attested almost 100% by at least three authors.

In the short gMark, Jesus was supposedly believed to be a mere prophet or John the Baptist by the Jews. Jesus was NOT known as a Sacrificial Lamb or Son of God by the Jews in gMark.

Mark 6 And again at gMark 8, the supposed disciples tell Jesus that the people believe he is a prophet or John the Baptist.

Mark 8 This is critically important--extremely significant. Jesus in gMark then asked the disciples who they think he is.

Mark 8 Up to gMark 8, the very disciples do NOT acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God although they were supposedly with him when he was declared by others to be the Son of God.

In the short gMark, the disciples of Jesus thought he was a man. He was recognised ONLY as the Christ but from the very start of the short gMark, a Voice of God from heaven Announced Jesus was his Beloved Son.

Mark 1Mark 3Mark 5 Before the disciples were asked who Jesus was it was already declared by God that Jesus was his Son.

But, even afterwards, Jesus would take Peter, James and John and transfigure and they would hear God acknowledge that Jesus is his Son.

Mark 9[ Now, when Jesus was arrested the disciples abandoned Jesus and Peter denied that he knew the MAN Jesus.

Mark 14 Up to the day Jesus was on trial before the Sanhedrin in gMark, Peter believed Jesus was just a man.

But, when the visitors went to annoint the Dead Body of Jesus it was GONE. Jesus resurrected.

Truly, gMark's Jesus was NOT a man. He was the Son of God.

Mark 15Mark 16.6 In the short gMark, the Jews and the very disciples of Jesus did NOT ever acknowledge Jesus was the Son of God it was the Roman ceturion who declared Jesus was truly God's Son even before the resurrection.

The short gMark's Jesus was an Apparition, he appeared as a Man but was the Son of God.

Sheshbazzar

Now wasn't that bit ridiculous? They had just been present on that high mountain,
had personally witnessed the astounding 'transfiguration' of Jebus,
and had even had Gawd Almighty Hisself talk to them personally and directly from heaven.
......And their still afraid of being arrested?
Even after having seen, heard, and experienced all of this -first hand and personally-, they still cain't trust their Gawd no how.
Why in the hell then should anyone else?

Its a flaky tale, apparently James, John, and Peter, never knew what a miraculous encounter they had experienced on that mythical high mountain.

(read, Mark 9:2-10 is late redacted horse shit cobbed from Matthew 17)