GrahamSA

Hi Toto

Thanks for clearing that up, appreciated.

I seem to remember from the reading that I have done that even after several deletions from the earliest documents of Mark, Mark is now longer as it has additions, ie the additions after mark 16:8.

I recall that the raising of Lazarus has been shortened due to deletions making it appear that lazarus was raised from a physical death and not a spiritual death, and I recall reading that was seen in the company with men clad in white sheets and this was also deleted, these deletions then should then have resulted in the current Mark being shorter than the older Marks, but as a result of the post Mark 16:8 additions it is now longer.

Apologies, it would appear that I am arguing techicalities here, but just recalling some reading that has formed my opinions/views to date, looks as if I may be wrong as I have always been under the impression that the old Mark ended at the crucifixion and the rest was added.

I seem to think I read it in Bart Ehrmann's book :huh:

Toto

I hope you are not thinking about Secret Mark. That would drag things too far off topic here.

It is easy to misremembers Bible stories. You can always look them up online.

GrahamSA

Yip, it is Secret Mark, is this discussed anywhere on IIDB ?

I am not a literalist so therefore do not see much in the literal interpretation of the New Testament writings so in keeping "on topic" would like to suggest that in a non literal sense the second coming refers to the second coming of Christ (KRST) and NOT the second coming of Jesus the person (if he even ever existed). Could it be that the author was referring to a second coming of the "KRST" that Jesus was supposed to be the representative of ?

Graham

Chili

How about Jesus-the-way? The way must part when the end is reached and come again to show another the same way.

Toto

Hi Graham - you can search this forum and find a multitude of threads. An occasional contributer here, Stephen C. Carlson, has written The Gospel Hoax, which puts together a pretty good case that it is a modern forgery.

I'm not sure how this solves the problem.

storytime

The story can be read as Jesus presenting a first reurrection and a second death. The first is the only resurrection as the second death had no power, for all in Christ were considered as alive never to die again. This would fit into the message Jesus sent John the Baptist while John was in prison. (Matthew 11:2-5)

"Now, when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him[Jesus], Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?

Jesus answered and said unto them, God and show John again those things which ye do hear and see;

The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them."

If Jesus purpose was restoring a past authority, such as he might have believed was the true authority at Jerusalem, and not the Pharisee ruling party, his recruiting of disciples for the specific purpose of overthrowing the Pharisees at Jerusalem could be seen as the resurrection of the dead. And if, as scripture says, Jesus did not speak without parables, then his message was intended not to be decerned by the Pharisees or others who may have been curious about the purpose of Jesus.

If the dead were raised up while Jesus was alive, then the first and only resurrection was complete. All that remained for the disciples to do would be expanding the numbers of Jews for Jesus, and any Gentile converts. (see John 17)

The second death was the falling away from Christ after hearing his message, for as Christ was god-in-the-flesh, it was the same as turning from God as they both were one. The second death meant no forgiveness in turning from God.

Jesus believed he held the truth. The Pharisees believed they held the truth. So, who held the truth?

jeffevnz

The WWII comparison is pretty invalid. We have a gigantic, consistent framework of physical and testimonial evidence that WWII happened. With Jesus we have a little bit of testimony, written decades after the fact, by a few people who do not claim or appear to have been witnesses. Worse yet, there is obvious textual dependence between the Gospels, and yet they still manage to contradict each other repeatedly. More importantly, there is no physical evidence supporting them, whatsoever. Not a very good comparison with WWII. And yes, as you point out, wars happen. It fits our framework of knowledge about the world. People coming back from the dead and floating up to the sky is not something that's known to happen.

Obviously you're right that if an event is historical, then it's historical, regardless of how common it is. But we don't know whether the events of the gospel are historical. We're trying to judge that. And it's not something we could ever know for certain, so what we want to know is how likely it is that the gospels are historical, given all the evidence. That includes not only the contents of the stories, but also other things we know about the world. Like the fact that people very rarely, if ever, come back from the dead. And the fact that people rarely, if ever, float up to the sky without the aid of technology. And the fact that people often fail to accurately transmit information, for many reasons.

Obviously the usual rules wouldn't apply if Jesus was God. But we don't know whether he was. Until we know that, the likelihood of him surviving his death is very low.

Curiously, many Christians use the Resurrection and Ascension as proof that Jesus was God, and then use Jesus being God to argue for the truth of the Resurrection and Ascension. All without getting embarassed.
Oh, I'm the wrong person to talk to about mythicism. I tend to think Jesus was a real person and that there is some history in the Gospels, though it's now corrupted beyond recognition.

Toto

preaching split off here

neilgodfrey

I think this does indeed make most sense of the question. The coming of the Lord in clouds and the falling of the stars and darkening of the sun and moon are all well known metaphors to claim the divine will at work behind the military defeats of powers and cities on earth.

I have a problem with the reply that says failed prophecies were always reinterpreted, never discarded. That explanation does not really work here, because the prophecies are "recorded" here in their apparently failed format -- there is no reinterpretative explanation qualifying them. Matthew even appears to go further in the direction of misinterpretation of failure by adding to Mark's words that Jesus was to come "immediately" after the tribulation.

Similarly, a difficulty I have with the explanation that the words were meant to apply to those of the readers' generation is that Mark's Jesus adds that it is the high priest who will be included among those who see the Son of Man return (14:62).

Mark's final chapters, the 13th in particular, are riddled with references from Daniel. Had the author known the way his words from Daniel about the coming of the son of man would be interpreted by later readers to mean something quite different from what they meant in their original context he might well have added another rider at this point too -- "Let the reader understand!"

The associating of the (apocalyptic) fall of Jerusalem to the sending out of "angels" or messengers to gather the elect is also interestingly in synch with an early notion (found as late is the 140's in Justin Martyr) that the disciples went out preaching the gospel from or around or at the time of the fall of Jerusalem.

Neil Godfrey

judge

Agreed.

If as you say above, the Lord coming on clouds etc indictaes the divine will behind military actions then the prophecies are not recorded in a failed format at all.

Jerusalem was in fact destroyed militarily, meaning that the prohecies are recorded in a fulfilled format.
The reinterpretation is what still lingers today (but has a long history) in say, Left Behind.




But here, aren't you in fact falling for the later reinterpretation I wrote of?
When the Lord came on clouds in the HB, who in fact actually saw the Lord?
No one.


What, however, if the gathering of the elect instead refers to the raising of the dead, something IIUC is associated with eschatology in jewish thought of the time.