mountainman

In 382 CE the christian church father Jerome (340-420) became an adviser to Damasus in Rome. Jerome initially rejected Mary’s virginity in childbirth, which he later came to accept, along with her perpetual virginity thereafter. He was convinced by Damasus, who was the very first christian Pontifex Maximus. Damasus always had convincing arguments, ever since Bishop Liberius had kicked the bucket.

When in 366 CE Liberius, bishop of Rome, died, Damasus and Ursinus battled for the bishopric of Rome. It was quite literally a battle between two competing mafia thugs. The prize was BIG TAX-EXEMPT BUSINESS.

At the end of one day, 137 corpses were counted in the Liberian basilica. Damasus won and ruled through 384 CE. Jerome was corrected on Mary's virginity by this expert thug bishop Damasus.




Best wishes



Pete Brown

spamandham

Much of this is shared by Judaism, which isn't surprising, since it also has 'pagan' origins, but:

The number 7 (representing the 7 nonfixed eye visible celestial objects).

The number 12 (representing the ~12 lunar cycles in a year which is manifested in Jewish iconography as the 12 tribes).

The number 4 (representing the 4 seasons, the four elements, the four 'corners' of the earth).

The number 3, representing the Egyptian trinity (also represents mind transcending matter - see Netunes trident).

The symbol of a cross (a pagan solar symbol representing the intersection of the divine with the earth).

The symbol of a dying lamb, representing the end of the age of Aries.

The symbol of the fish, representing the new age of Pisces.

...I imagine I'm missing quite a few.

Sheshbazzar

Interesting how Christianity and popular history tends to forget just how "persuasive" these early bishops could be, and by what means almost all of this "persuasion" and "correction" was actually accomplished, Very little by "love", but a whole lot by "strong-arming" and terror.
When discussing the early church's "persuading" tactics, the term "Mafia" often quite appropriately comes up (recall the thread on Ananias and Sapphira).
It makes me to wonder whether the early Mafia was the prototype for the church, or whether the church's tactics provided the business inspiration for what became the Mafia, kind of a which came first, the chicken or its egg?
Anyway, the method employed in the extortion of Ananias and Sapphira, and through their example, other "church members" monies, as further developed and carried forward by the church's "Bishops" certainly bears a striking similarity to the "business methods" employed by that blight that has so long been upon on Italians business reputation.
In short, the church's methods of "taking care of business" and the "enforcement of authority" seem to also confirm a Roman (Italian) origin of, or strong influence upon the contents of "Boss" Constantine's strange "New Testament" religion and the operation of his Church.

Ben C Smith

(I myself suspect that the most original version of Mark did not survive; I suspect that Mark originally had an ending that was either lost or suppressed. However, my argument has only to do with the version of Mark that lacks resurrection appearances.)

My sentiment that you were unclear instead of wrong was hasty; I have thought the matter through a bit more since yesterday, and come to the conclusion that this kind of statement is simply incorrect:

1. Copies (most of them?) in the time of Eusebius lacked any appended ending.
2. Eusebius himself favored the abrupt version (at least partly because the longer ending creates harmonization problems in the resurrection narrative). He even stopped his canons short of the longer ending.
3. Lots of people respected Eusebius. Jerome followed his judgment on the matter, and in the Middle Ages we still see manuscripts that give the longer ending only with a note that not all manuscripts have it.

In other words, any argument that equates orthodoxy with acceptance of the longer ending has overstepped its bounds. Both before Eusebius (based on the copies known to him, and on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) and after him (Jerome, various copyists) there were orthodox Christians who preferred Mark without it.

You also stated that Mark survived because of appended ending, and then claimed that I was agreeing with you when I said that the ending was appended in order to make it survive. But these statements are not the same.

One antiques dealer varnishes his old wooden table in order to preserve it, while another, while certainly wishing to preserve it, thinks that varnish compromises the value of the table. Same thing with Mark. Plenty of Christians (Irenaeus and Victor of Antioch, for instance) would have liked the longer ending as a preservative, as it were, for Mark. But other Christians (Eusebius, for example) would have preferred Mark without that ending.

I accepted your qualification freely and gratefully. You should have quit when you were ahead.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
There is no Scientific basis for your hope that "Mark" did not end at 16:8. As I've demonstrated many times on these Holy Boards 16:8 fits perfectly with the Literary Ironic theme of the work as a whole. "Mark" is a carefully constructed, highly structured, tight cohesive narrative that even you are starting to appreciate. When foreign material is Forged to it, it is relatively easy to pick-off the fly shit. Um, just like 16:9-20.

I think we can stop arguing about the definition of "survived" at this point and move on to the related issue of whether any Christian Believers used original "Mark" by itself and rejected not only all other Gospels but also all significant corrections to "Mark" made by other Gospels.

"Mark" has a primary theme of rejection of historical witness and before there were any other Gospels, I think the early Church understood this. That is why it was never quoted or referred to. It was only after "Matthew" and "Luke" Edited "Mark", in large part with the Forged Beginnings and Endings, that anyone could have Implications that "Mark" was just an abbreviation of a larger Gospel. Specifically, "Matthew" and "Luke" Explicitly show Acceptance of historical witness to Jesus and as they have largely copied "Mark" Christians could assume that "Mark" had an Implication of the same result.

You mentioned S and V as evidence that "Mark" survived. But it was part of a Canon, wasn't it? What happened to the many copies of original "Mark" referred to by Eusebius and Jerome? Where is original surviving "Mark" all by itself? Who used original "Mark" and rejected all other Gospels and their Assertians? Specifically, there was someone who accepted "Mark's" primary theme that historical witness did not understand Jesus. The earliest specific attributed use of any Gospel. But he apparently rejected original "Mark" (it didn't survive) in favor of "Luke". Who was he?



Joseph

Ben C Smith

Joe, I had a lengthier response typed up for you, but then I focused on this one line and realized that you are simply playing word games with me.

Assuming that the answer to your riddle is Marcion (and it hardly matters who the person is if he lived before Eusebius), to suggest that abrupt Mark did not even survive to the time of Marcion -- when Eusebius still knows it, defends it, and models his canon tables around it -- is to redefine the term survive virtually into its antonym. And to do so in a post which also continues to blur the clear distinction between not surviving and surviving because is an insult to my intelligence, however limited it may be.

If you wish to find a suitable debating partner for your unique brand of overcapitalized polemics, let me suggest aa___. Perhaps he will prove less of a disappointment to you than I have been.

Ciao.

Ben.

mountainman

The history of Christianity makes a lot more sense
when you understand that Constantine considered
himself to be the "Bishop of Bishops" and for a very
very good reason.



The Roman emperors came first. They are best visualised
as imperial thugs with their own armies. Then along came
Constantine, who invented the Christian Bishops in an epoch
of ascetic pagan priests. The church was imperially appointed.


By the year 350 CE land tax had tripled
within living memory. Christian Bishops
were tax exempt.



Invention, forgery, persecution and intolerance
are the keywords of the fourth century. That
the pagan Constantine first published the new
testament, and employed pagan polemic in its
supporting historiographies is abundantly clear.

These events have been examined with "christian
glasses". Isn't it time to take them off?


Best wishes



Pete Brown