Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 12-03-2011, 06:09 PM

I don't disagree with much of what you have written here. Although the relationship of GMArk to the other gospels may not be chronological but may have come to light in a different location with a different tradition, relying on a common story source. But those first verses just don't fit the storyline at all. I am not worried about historical accuracy but about context, content and continuity. GMark tells the story of a Jewish holy man (perhaps "son of man") and not necessarily the promised messiah at all. The first 14 verses talk about something altogether different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

John the Baptist plays a wholly introductory role in Mark until verse 11, NOT just in that single verse you mentioned. It is true that the Jesus of Mark does not baptize anyone with the holy spirit or anything else. But it is clear that the first 11 verses are later additions to a story about what is essentially a Jewish holy man, nothing more. ...

It is NOT clear at all that the first 11 verses are later additions just because you say so. You must either show a text of gMark without the 11 verses or that some source claimed that gMark did NOT have the first 11 verses.

You have NOT provided any evidence at all only your BELIEF.

Why must gMark be actual history? gMark reads like Fiction. Why do you want to historicise and change the fiction story?

Why don't you try to understand gMark itself instead of making stuff up from your imagination?

Jesus did NOT even tell his OWN disciples he was a MESSIAH before Peter did so.

It was PETER who FIRST told the disciples that Jesus was Christ in gMark.

Jesus did NOT tell Peter he was the Messiah.

In gMatthew, Jesus even told Peter that it was GOD who told Peter that he was the Messiah.

Jesus did NOT want anyone to know he was Christ and did NOT want the Jews to be Converted.

Jesus as a SAVIOR and Messiah of the Jews is A LATE ADDITION in the Gospels.

You WILL not find these words of Jesus in gMark.

John 3

Quote:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

gMark's Jesus wanted the Jews to REMAIN in Sin. See Mark 4.

gMark has DESTROYED the chronology of the Pauline Epistles.

The Pauline Epistles are about UNIVERSAL SALVATION through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

gMark was written BEFORE the Belief that Jesus died for the SINS of all mankind. gMark's Jesus came fundamentally to the Jews.

The death of gMark's Jesus SIGNIFIED REJECTION by the Jews and then destruction of Jerusalem not Salvation.

aa5874 · 12-03-2011, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I don't disagree with much of what you have written here. Although the relationship of GMArk to the other gospels may not be chronological but may have come to light in a different location with a different tradition, relying on a common story source. But those first verses just don't fit the storyline at all....

How could it be that gMark is not chronological with the other Gospels when it is deduced that gMatthew used virtually ALL of gMark?

The claims in gMatthew about John the Baptist is compatible with those first verses of gMark.

All the Synoptics used the same chronology found in gMark where Jesus was FIRST baptized by John in the scene with a Holy Ghost Bird and A VOICE from heaven and then was Tempted by the Devil.

All three Synoptics claimed Jesus would baptize people with the Holy Ghost and even with Fire but Jesus FAILED to carry out the supposed prediction of John.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

....I am not worried about historical accuracy but about context, content and continuity. GMark tells the story of a Jewish holy man (perhaps "son of man") and not necessarily the promised messiah at all. The first 14 verses talk about something altogether different....

If you are not worried about the veracity or historical accuracy of gMark then I really don't understand why you would be worried about context, content and continuity.

Duvduv · 12-03-2011, 07:32 PM

It is simply possible that those gospels AND GMark used a common source or sources for their ideas. But the gist of Mark with his Jesus as a Jewish holy man, even as a Son-of-Man is different than an actual promised Messiah. Although I am not 100% convinced that Mark's references in the third person to a son-of-man referred to the Jesus figure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I don't disagree with much of what you have written here. Although the relationship of GMArk to the other gospels may not be chronological but may have come to light in a different location with a different tradition, relying on a common story source. But those first verses just don't fit the storyline at all....

How could it be that gMark is not chronological with the other Gospels when it is deduced that gMatthew used virtually ALL of gMark?

The claims in gMatthew about John the Baptist is compatible with those first verses of gMark.

All the Synoptics used the same chronology found in gMark where Jesus was FIRST baptized by John in the scene with a Holy Ghost Bird and A VOICE from heaven and then was Tempted by the Devil.

All three Synoptics claimed Jesus would baptize people with the Holy Ghost and even with Fire but Jesus FAILED to carry out the supposed prediction of John.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

....I am not worried about historical accuracy but about context, content and continuity. GMark tells the story of a Jewish holy man (perhaps "son of man") and not necessarily the promised messiah at all. The first 14 verses talk about something altogether different....

If you are not worried about the veracity or historical accuracy of gMark then I really don't understand why you would be worried about context, content and continuity.

aa5874 · 12-04-2011, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It is simply possible that those gospels AND GMark used a common source or sources for their ideas. But the gist of Mark with his Jesus as a Jewish holy man, even as a Son-of-Man is different than an actual promised Messiah. Although I am not 100% convinced that Mark's references in the third person to a son-of-man referred to the Jesus figure...

You keep making assertions that are erroneous. Please read the ACTUAL story and do not project your beliefs on to gMark.

gMark's Jesus was a Miracle and Wonder worker. Virtually every chapter, from 1-11, in gMark contains one or two miracles which NEVER happened and could Not have happened. There are at least 17 miracles in gMark.

It is just a story that people believed was true.

After Jesus "did" all those miracles, "healed" the sick Jews , "fed" the hungry Jews, "cast out the demons" from the Evil Jews, and raised the DEAD Jews, his own disciples either betrayed, abandoned and denied him. And later, the same HUNGRY, SICK, EVIL Jewish Crowd that Jesus helped told Pilate to Crucify him.

The Evil Spirits told the Jews that Jesus was the Son of God and they SAW Jesus performing like a God but the day he said he was the Son of the Blessed he was a dead DUCK [Phantom].

That is the gMark story. The EVIL Jews had the Son of God crucified after he fed them, healed them, and raised their dead.

Mark 1.24

Quote:

And there was ......a man with an Unclean Spirit, and he cried out .....I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

Mark 5

Quote:

...When he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him a man with an Unclean Spirit.......but when he saw Jesus.....he ran and worshiped him, and cried......What have I to do with thee, Thou Son of the Most High God?......

Mark 15

Quote:

Then Pilate said unto them Why, What Evil hath he done?

And they cried out the more exceedingly Crucify him..

Duvduv · 12-04-2011, 05:19 AM

Yes, a holy man can be a miracle worker, but this is a far cry from being a messiah or savior. The son of man still remains ambiguous and in the third person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It is simply possible that those gospels AND GMark used a common source or sources for their ideas. But the gist of Mark with his Jesus as a Jewish holy man, even as a Son-of-Man is different than an actual promised Messiah. Although I am not 100% convinced that Mark's references in the third person to a son-of-man referred to the Jesus figure...

You keep making assertions that are erroneous. Please read the ACTUAL story and do not project your beliefs on to gMark.

gMark's Jesus was a Miracle and Wonder worker. Virtually every chapter, from 1-11, in gMark contains one or two miracles which NEVER happened and could Not have happened. There are at least 17 miracles in gMark.

It is just a story that people believed was true.

After Jesus "did" all those miracles, "healed" the sick Jews , "fed" the hungry Jews, "cast out the demons" from the Evil Jews, and raised the DEAD Jews, his own disciples either betrayed, abandoned and denied him. And later, the same HUNGRY, SICK, EVIL Jewish Crowd that Jesus helped told Pilate to Crucify him.

The Evil Spirits told the Jews that Jesus was the Son of God and they SAW Jesus performing like a God but the day he said he was the Son of the Blessed he was a dead DUCK [Phantom].

That is the gMark story. The EVIL Jews had the Son of God crucified after he fed them, healed them, and raised their dead.

Mark 1.24

Mark 5

Mark 15

Quote:

Then Pilate said unto them Why, What Evil hath he done?

And they cried out the more exceedingly Crucify him..

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 06:53 AM

If the paulist tradition didn't need a Baptist to serve an particular purpose, then the savior of GMark could easily have been presented with no need for the Baptist either. But the author of Mark or at least the interpolater could have done so without those first 14 verses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Interesting points, but you have to admit that the absence of the Baptist in the Pauline sect of the epistles doesn't seem to detract from that ideology at all, where Elijah doesn't even play a part in the advent of the Christ and the eschaton.
Indeed, unlike the author(s) of the epistles (except for the reference to the seed of David which is probably an interpolation), the gospelists and later Orthodox attached themselves specifically to the Pharisee rabbinic messianic tradition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

But it was better with him. Much better.

John had four roles that together made the ministry of Jesus more effective, and more convincing.

a) John baptised, in running water, for repentance, or turning from evil and lax habits. That signified washing, and a new attitude to sinfulness that was very sorely missed, due to the great decline in spirituality that had taken place since Moses, Joshua, David, Naaman and even Nehemiah. A sense of guilt is needed if a sense of need for a saviour is to be felt. This humbler attitude was therefore necessary, and at a deep level, because when 'righteous' Pharisees and Sadducees came for baptism, they were turned away. John's refusal to recognise official religious authority was precedent and preparation for the same refusal by Jesus.

b) John announced the imminent arrival of the long-awaited Messiah, a greater one than he. He specifically denied that he was the long-promised Messiah, but that their Messiah was very soon to be known to the Jews. John was born only shortly before Jesus, and his birth was similarly attended by supernatural phenomena, so there was comparison, but also contrast.

c) John used his valued reputation (or notoriety, to the religious establishment) to personally identify Jesus as the Messiah, and even prophesied the means by which he was to be the Messiah, by his death. "Look, see the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" achieved these purposes in a highly momentous way.

d) John baptised Jesus, thereby providing supernatural identification of Jesus as the Messiah. This was seen as sufficiently important (imv) as to provide lasting evidence of Jesus' identity in an essential passage in 1 Jn 5:

'Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. This is the one who came by water and blood — Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.' 1 Jn 5:5-9 NIV

The two historic witnesses are 'water' (divine approbation) and 'blood' (the crucifixion, which Jesus said would draw all to him); the third, the Spirit, validates their witness to the spirit of the believer. This takes the OT principle (typical of John the author) of the need for 'two or three witnesses' to a context much wider than that of Israel, applying it cosmically. That is the ultimate significance of John, the baptist, whose own prophetic words— "All mankind will see God's salvation"— he helped to fulfil.

sotto voce · 12-06-2011, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If the paulist tradition didn't need a Baptist to serve an particular purpose, then the savior of GMark could easily have been presented with no need for the Baptist either. But the author of Mark or at least the interpolater could have done so without those first 14 verses.

Indeed. But this proves what? Is it as reasonable to say that the story of Jesus was anchored in John's environment as it is reasonable to say that the story of John was predicated on Jesus' existence?

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 10:13 AM

Yes, but the mystery is why. After all, the Baptist has no mention whatsoever in any traditional Jewish texts.
Even if the Baptist were a wandering preacher calling the people to repent, there must have been many of such people in the early 1st century. So why HIM? Why not a group of such people advocating his ideas and predicting the one who was baptized (and adopted by heaven?)??
Was the Baptist the FIRST person to view the Jesus figure as the fulfillment of scriptural prophecies, and that's why he got top billing??

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If the paulist tradition didn't need a Baptist to serve an particular purpose, then the savior of GMark could easily have been presented with no need for the Baptist either. But the author of Mark or at least the interpolater could have done so without those first 14 verses.

Indeed. But this proves what? Is it as reasonable to say that the story of Jesus was anchored in John's environment as it is reasonable to say that the story of John was predicated on Jesus' existence?

sotto voce · 12-06-2011, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Yes, but the mystery is why. After all, the Baptist has no mention whatsoever in any traditional Jewish texts.

'A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.' Isa 40:3 NIV

'See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the Lord Almighty.' Mal 3:1 NIV

Quote:

Even if the Baptist were a wandering preacher calling the people to repent, there must have been many of such people in the early 1st century.

Such as?

Horatio Parker · 12-06-2011, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Why would john the Baptist be so important for the gospel setting??
The gospel setting could have been just fine without him.
The story of Jesus didn't need anchoring specifically in John's environment.
Paul's Jesus did just fine in the epistles without resorting to the Baptist even a single time!

JtB is there because he had a following that the early church wanted to co-opt.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.