Sheshbazzar

Did he?

The answer to that is the question here under consideration.

I am not asking you to invent stories.

I AM asking you to explain on what basis you interpret the words of Mark 15:39 in the manner that you do.

Is it not simply because that is the way your Christian mentors have taught you?
And the way your Christian produced English language Bible seems to read?

I am challenging you to provide some reason or knowledge of your own, for your interpretation of the sense of these words, that is based on the content of Mark and the rest of the Bible, or your expertise in the Greek language, and not upon simply your repeating what has been fed to you by Christian authority, or by your superficial reading of your English language Bible.
First point, I did not fabricate my own words for the the centurion, I explained the sense and the context the words written should be understood in. That does not change a word of what was written.

I do not want "to change the actual words of the AUTHOR." Not one even letter.

I am saying that intelligent persons need to take another look at these words of Mark 15:39 in their CONTEXT, and to question whether in light of all that this Author has written, and the fact that this AUTHOR has been careful to build up a scenario where NO ONE, not even his Protagonist Jesuz closest associates recognize him as being The Son of God, although they have seen the most extreme miracles and evidences, as reported in chapter after chapter of this tale.

Then ask how likely is it, that the words of this verse, Mark 15:39, -without changing a single word- ought to be interpreted as being the centurion's expression of an awe struck insight.

That is the sense your English language Christian produced Bible translation instills in this verse.

I am here challenging whether that is the actual sense in which the Author intended this centurion's words to be understood.

Or rather, is it not far more consistent with the entire context of the Book of Mark, and with the author's consistent theme of NO ONE recognizing Jezus as being The Son of God, to understand that this statement was also a dismissive epitaph?

I am fully persuaded that the Author, consistent with all that he had penned before, along with this centurion character's carefully crafted exclusion from any involvement in the foregoing tale, intended his careful readers to understand that this centurion's one, only, and final contribution to this man's life was an arrogant and contempt filled dismissive EPITAPH.
Marking the end of this man's earthly life.

One intended by the Author to be understood by his readers as being extremely ironic, The final intended insult, that yet states the textually obvious truth.

The counter-point to all that proceeds in this carefully crafted STORY of men killing their Messiah and Son of God, does not actually arrive until the tomb is found empty.
Having a centurion recognize Jesus before that turning point is senseless and counter to the entire theme of non-recognition that the author has crafted.

There is no logic, there is no story consistency, in having this unknown Roman centurion being the only one out of all mankind to be in rapt awe at the cross recognizing that this was the Son of God.

The words the centurion character spoke were certainly intended to be dismissive and ironic. Not complementary.

The words the centurion spoke don't need changed, only what we, the readers are reading into them and how we are interpreting their emotion and import.


.

aa5874

Well, you have now admitted that you are reading things into the passage. I find that totally unacceptable and perhaps should be followed by some kind of gob.

1. The AUTHOR wrote in his story that when Jesus was baptized a voice from heaven acknowledge Jesus as My Beloved Son.

2. The AUTHOR in his story claimed when Jesus Transfigured a voice from the Clouds acknowledge Jesus as My Beloved Son

3. The AUTHOR in his story claimed Evil Spirits Bowed down to Jesus and acknowledged that Jesus was the Son of God.

4. The AUTHOR wrote in his story that a LEGION of Evil Spirits acknowledge Jesus was the Son of the Most High God.

Based on the fact that the AUTHOR wrote Multiple times in his story that Jesus was the Son of God then it is not logical at all that he did NOT intend to make his centurion character claim that Truly, this man was the Son of God.

From the start of gMark, the AUTHOR made sure he introduced his Jesus as "MY Beloved Son from the voice of heaven.

Mark 1:11 ----And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased .

And at the End.

Mark 15--- Truly this man was the Son of God

The story of the gMark AUTHOR is that the Jesus the Son of God was Rejected and Killed because of the Evil Jews but Jesus conquered death just as he Predicted and resurrected.

The story in gMark is extremely easy to understand.

Mark 8:31 KJV

Sheshbazzar

I most sincerely thank you aa, for having provided me with this opportunity to present, and and to explain my views on the matter. You have been a wonderful opponent, and few there are that could have performed any better.

It has been a good dispute. And in the larger context of what goes on within this Forum, far for the better that we should remain so strongly opposed on this matter of a minor textual interpretation. There far bigger fish which we will enjoy frying together.

Sheshbazzar

jakejonesiv

Dear AK47,

What is this nonsense you keep posting about short gMark? There is no such thing as short gMark, only the short ending and the long ending to the gospel.
"Truly this man was the Son of God" does not have textual variations that correlate to the absence or presence of the long ending.
So your comments have been shown to be :hitsthefan:

WHY DO YOU NOT QUOTE THE VERSE of Mark 15:37??? What are you afraid of?

15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the GHOST.
Whatt??? How could Jesus BE a ghost and give up the GHOST. The cross would be empty and there would be no body to take to the tomb. YOU EXPLAIN now.

aa5874

Please refrain from mutilating my user name.
:hitsthefan: You are contradicting yourself. You are not credible. You admit that there are short and long endings to the gospel but still simultaneously state that there is no such thing as short gMark.

The author of the short gMark is NOT the author of the long gMark so they are really NOT the same gospel because of the additional verses.

I use the term "short gMark" in reference to the Sinaiticus Codex gMark which ends at the 8th verse of the 16th chapter.

Well, well, well!! :hitsthefan:

It is most laughable that you think the short gMark is an historical account.

What :horsecrap:

1. If Jesus had a human body how come he was WALKING on the Sea of Galilee?? :hitsthefan:

2. If Jesus had a human body how come he Transfigured?? :hitsthefan:

3. If the Cloud had NO human body how could it Talk?? :hitsthefan:

4. If the heaven had NO human body how could it Talk?? :hitsthefan:

5. If the Evil SPIRITS had NO human body how could they Talk?? :hitsthefan:

You appear NOT to understand the very basic of Jewish, Greek and Roman Mythology.

Please, please, please!!! You don't appear to make sense anymore.

It is extremely important that you understand that the short gMark is NOT an historical account but a Myth Fable of the Son of God who was supposedly Delievered up by the Jews to be killed and then resurrected after three days.

We know that the Pauline letters to Churches were composed AFTER the short gMark because the Pauline letters BEGIN exactly where the short gMark ENDS.

The short gMark ENDS at the Resurrection and the Pauline Revelation BEGINS AFTER the resurrection.

andrewcriddle

I think that Acts 28:15 clearly implies that there are already Christian believers (brethren) in Rome when Paul arrives there.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

We have gone through Acts of the Apostles word for word a "thousand" times and it does NOT corroborate and does NOT mention a single Pauline letter to Churches--NONE-ZERO-NIL.

The author of Acts writing at least no earlier than the END of the 1st century has NO recollection at all of the Pauline Revealed Teachings from the Resurrected Jesus orally or in writing.

We have gone through Acts of the Apostles a "thousand" more times word for word and Paul did NOT even once mention or Preach his REVEALED Teaching from the Resurrected Jesus.

1. There is NO Preaching by Paul of his Revelations of the Resurrected Jesus in Acts.

2. There are NO Pauline letters in Acts.

Amazingly, astonishingly in Acts it is claimed that a Voice told Paul to go to the Damascus to RECEIVE INSTRUCTIONS.

Acts 22:10 KJV It was the disciples in Damascus that INSTURCTED Paul.

Up to the very Last CHAPTER in Acts Paul did NOT preach his Revealed Teachings from the Resurrected Jesus--Paul used the writings of MOSES and the Prophets.

Acts 28:23 KJV The Pauline Revealed Teachings from the resurrected and Pauline Letters were completely UNKNOWN by the author of Acts up to at least the end of the 1st century.

The Pauline lettters to Churches must have been or were most likely composed After Acts of the Apostles or after c 100 CE

Now, this is extremely significant.

The author of Acts is probably the Only writer in antiquity who mentioned Paul over 100 times and NEVER ONCE claimed he wrote letters to Churches.

CroMagnon

This has been a most interesting read re the (lack of) external evidence for the Pauline epistles. They seem to appear no earlier than the latter half of the 2nd century.

I recall someone posting a comparison of the books of the NT canon by number of textual variations. A higher number of manuscript variations would indicate an earlier date than writings with few variations.
Can anyone point me to this list?

What about internal evidence? Any historical anachronisms? Some of the comments about "the Jews" at least seem to me not to fit the supposed pre 70 date and identification of the writer as the Paul from Acts.

Another obvious problem with traditional "scholarly" dating of the epistles as the earliest Christian writings, is that all other "high christology" writings (gJohn?) are considered later than "low christology" writings (the synoptics). Why then are the "high christology" Pauline epistles regarded as the very earliest of the entire NT canon, decades earlier than gMark?
This is a huge contradiction on the part of NT scholarshop.

stephan huller

I am not sure a date for Paul can be definitively established. The question has to be - why would the orthodox be so adamant that Paul was after the apostles (= Peter) but before the destruction of the temple? Why is it important to them?

The problem I have with the Detering argument for a second century date for the gospel(s) is that there is no better evidence than the first century dating, save only you have to assume a massive lie being promoted by the orthodox. The question again is why would the orthodox need to change the date?

If Paul = Marcion (a theory I have thought about for some time) then the consistent idea that Marcion experienced the same revelation in the third heaven (Eznik, Irenaeus etc) would make sense. So too would the idea shared by the Marcionites and Valentinians apparently that Paul was the Paraclete (= and therefore Jesus was prophesying about the advent of Paul/Marcion in a gospel written by Paul/Marcion).

The problem that remains is why there is a consistent idea that Paul or Mark added to or adapted an original gospel written by Peter. If we are to believe that a proto-gospel existed throughout the first century and then Paul added to that text (cf. consistent statements that the heretics said this in Tertullian), how can the Marcionites have claimed that Paul was the only gospel writer, that Peter never wrote a gospel? Why would have taken so long for this adaption process to have occurred?

I guess I am asking even if we move Paul to the second century don't we still have to leave Peter in the first century and a Peter who was a gospel writer?

James The Least

I don't know if the concepts of heresy/orthodoxy had been conceived of by the Catholics before the mid-second century.

Considering how nearly all of the Pauline epistles touch upon false teachers or relapsing converts, it's hard to imagine that the Marcionite churches would use these first against the Catholics, and then the Catholics would simply adopt them and then use the same (slightly altered, but never mentioning Marcion) letters against the Marcionites. They would have just considered "Paul" a heretic like Marcion and would've rejected his writings wholesale.

I think the old view may be right - the Pauline writings date mostly from the first century, and were adapted by the Marcionites, the Gnostics and the Catholics. Like all the other scriptures and related texts, all three churches editorialized them to suit their particular ideologies.

It does seem remarkable that the Pauline writer, if these were real letters, would not actually name who his opponents were. But why wouldn't the Catholics, during their editorializing, simply include an outright reference to "the false teaching of the Marcionites" in Romans or 1 Corinthians?