JoeWallack

Was Jesus perfect according to “Mark� and “Matthew�?

JW:
A brief examination of selected verses in each seems to indicate that “Mark’s� Jesus was not perfect while “Matthew’s� Jesus was (at least in "Matthew's" eyes). Consider the following from:

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html


#148

Mark 1: (KJV)
12 “And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.�

Compare to Matthew 4: (KJV)
1 “Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.�

Note the differences in description of what happens after the baptism. In “Mark� immediately after the baptism where Jesus received the spirit of God he is forcibly driven into the wilderness by the spirit of God. According to “Mark� Jesus received something at the baptism that he previously did not possess. This is consistent with “Mark’s� depiction of Jesus not being born great but achieving greatness. “Matthew� has toned down the force of the spirit on Jesus saying “led� instead of “driven� and “then� instead of “immediately�. Apparently, for “Matthew� it was a problem showing Jesus as significantly different after the baptism.

“Mark’s� Jesus apparently lacked something and needed to be driven forward while “Matthew’s� Jesus didn’t although he still needed to be lead.


#155

Mark 2: (KJV)
26 “How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?�

I Samuel describes the meeting as follows:

I Samuel 21: (JPS)

2 “Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came to meet David trembling, and said unto him: 'Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?'�

So according to the Tanakh Ahimelech was the high priest at the time and not Abiathar. “Matthew� recognized “Mark’s� error and omitted the reference to Abiathar.

“Mark’s� Jesus quotes in error while “Matthew’s� doesn’t. This raises an interesting question normally not discussed by Christian Bible scholarship:

Did “Mark� accurately quote Jesus or a source superior to his Gospel that had Jesus quoting in error but not edit it because he felt he didn’t need to present a perfect Jesus while “Matthew� felt he did?


#156

Mark 2: (KJV)
26 “How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?�

As indicated above the account in the Tanakh indicates that David was alone so Jesus’ audience could not have read that David gave the shewbread to “them which were with him�. “Matthew� also recognized this error and omitted the explicit statement that David gave bread to those with
him.

Same as the previous observation.


#162

Mark 5: (KJV)
7 “And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. 8 For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit. 9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many. 10 And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country. 11 Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. 12 And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. 13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave.�

Compare to:

Matthew 8: (KJV)
29 “And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding. 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine:�

There are many strange aspects of “Mark’s� story here that “Matthew� has exorcised in his version. Note that in Mark the demon actually resists Jesus’ initial command to leave, “Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit�. Matthew saw resistance to Jesus’ commands as a theological impossibility so in his version the demons obey Jesus’ initial command, “Go�.

“Mark’s� Jesus had a limit on his power here while “Matthew’s� Jesus didn’t.


#165

Mark 5: (KJV)
27 “When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment. 28 For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. 29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague. 30 And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?�

Compare to:

Matthew 9: (KJV)
20 “And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment: 21 For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole. 22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.�

In “Mark� Jesus’ act of healing in this story is an unconscious act. In “Matthew� it’s a conscious act. As usual “Matthew� has healed a perceived deficiency in Jesus according to “Mark�.

“Mark’s� Jesus shows a lack of knowledge here which “Matthew’s� Jesus possesses.


#167

Mark 6: (KJV)
5 “And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.�

Compare to:

Matthew 13: (KJV)
58 “And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.�

“Mark� states that Jesus could not do mighty work. In typical “Matthew� style, Matthew undoes a Markan limitation on Jesus and says that Jesus chose not to do mighty works.

“Mark’s� Jesus here shows a lack of power while “Matthew’s� Jesus lacks this lack.


#179

Mark 7: (KJV)
19 “Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?�

A superior translation for “purging all meats� above is an editorial comment by the author, “thus he declared all foods clean� and this is the most common translation of a majority of modern Bible translations. This contradicts the report of “Matthew� that Jesus claimed he would not change the Law in any way. Note that “Mark� never has Jesus promise that he won’t change the Law like “Matthew� does. This subject is a good example of how “Mark� is more consistent within itself than “Matthew� because it’s not based on an editing of another Gospel like “Matthew� is. “Matthew� didn’t accept “Mark’s� position that Jesus did change the Law but Matthew still wanted to include specific stories from Mark that showed Jesus changing the Law.

“Mark’s� Jesus broke the Law but that’s no big deal if your Jesus isn’t perfect. “Matthew’s� Jesus couldn’t break the Law (at least according to “Matthew�) because then he wouldn’t be perfect.


#192

Mark 9: (KJV)
13 “But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.�

There is no prophecy in the Tanakh that Elijah would suffer during his mission or fail in any sense. Compare to:

Matthew 17: (KJV)

12 “But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they
listed.�

When the author of “Matthew� ran this part of “Mark� through the Zerox machine he whited out “as it is written of him� because he realized there was no such prophecy.

Another example of an imperfect Jesus being allowed an imperfect quote.


#193

Mark 9: (KJV)
16 “And he asked the scribes, What question ye with them?�

Compare to:

Matthew 17: (KJV)
14 “And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying, 15 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.�

In Mark’s account Jesus has to ask what’s going on. As usual Matthew has changed Mark so that Jesus is not asking a question which would imply lack of knowledge on his part.

“Mark’s� Jesus has to ask. “Matthew’s� doesn’t.


#195

Mark 9: (KJV)
28 “And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out? 29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.�

Compare to:

Matthew 17: (KJV)
19 “Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? 20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.�

According to “Mark� the reason for the disciples’ failure was they didn’t use the right method (prayer. “Fasting� is a later addition not supported by the evidence of the early manuscripts). According to “Matthew� the reason for the disciples’ failure was a lack of faith. Matthew’s finish to the story “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer� is the perfect ending, just not the way Christians think it is. In the story Matthew just gave Jesus didn’t use prayer to make that kind go out, he used the standard rebuke maneuver. Mark’s story here is actually just an apology to try and explain why officially designated followers of Jesus who were supposedly given the authority from Jesus to heal anyone could not heal some people (like those who were really sick). The apology is that anyone who is not immediately healed must have the type of demon which can only be cured through praying for an INDEFINITE time period (like until they get better, die, are branded a non-believer or every one forgets all about them, whichever comes first).


#198

Mark 10: (KJV)
2 “And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.�

Compare to Matthew 19: (KJV)

3 “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?�

“Matthew� has changed “Mark’s� question from “is divorce lawful� to “is divorce lawful for any reason�. Mark had no problem having Jesus blatantly contradict the law of the Tanakh and justify the contradiction with a contrived explanation supported by Jesus’ supposed authority to reinterpret/change. Matthew tried harder to have his Jesus respect the existing law and since the Tanakh clearly permitted divorce Matthew changed Mark’s question.

Another example of “Mark’s� imperfect Jesus being able to not follow the Law.


#200

Mark 10: (KJV)
2 “And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.�

“Matthew’s� Jesus promised not to change the Law in any way but here’s “Mark’s� Jesus changing the Law (again). Note that Mark’s Jesus never promised not to change the Law.


#202

Mark 10: (KJV)
17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.�

Compare to:

Matthew 19: (KJV)
16 “And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.�

Normally, when “Mark� and “Matthew� are presenting narratives of the same story I won’t claim an error unless there is a significant difference in their descriptions. For conversations though I’ll apply a stricter standard as the record of a conversation should not have any variation. I’ll still only claim error when comparing records of conversations if there is more than a trivial difference in meaning. Mark and Matthew are clearly providing records of the exact same conversation above and the difference in meaning is more than trivial. According to Mark the event starts with Jesus being addressed as “good teacher� and explaining that only God is good. This is consistent with Mark’s presentation of a more human Jesus who is subservient to God. The KJV translation of Matthew above is not supported by the overwhelming evidence from early manuscripts. Almost all other modern translations lack the “good� before “master� and have Jesus ask “why do you ask me about what is good� instead of “why callest thou me good�. This is consistent with Matthew’s presentation of a Jesus without any flaws. This leaves Matthew’s story though with the nonsensical question “why do you ask me about what is good?�. Gosh, why would anyone ask Matthew’s Jesus that?

“Mark’s� Jesus indicates there is someone perfect but it’s not him (unless he was referring to “Matthew’s� Jesus). “Matthew� Jesus’ removes himself from the comparison to the one who is good.


#203

Mark 10: (KJV)

19 “Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.�

Compare to:

Matthew 19: (KJV)

18 “He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.�

Same conversation, different commandments. “Mark’s� “defraud not� may have been intended to be a summary of several commandments but “Matthew� was apparently bothered by the fact that there is no such specific commandment so he deleted it when he copied from Mark.

Once again “Mark’s� Jesus is permitted to quote inaccurately.


#219

Mark 11: (KJV)
14 “And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.�

Compare to:

Matthew 21: (KJV)
19 “And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.�

Mark doesn’t report the tree suffering any immediate ill effects. Matthew reports that it immediately withered away. Once again Matthew is upping the Templo.

“Mark’s� Jesus’ power is slower than “Matthew’s� Jesus.


#242

Mark 14: (KJV)
33 “And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy;�

Compare to Matthew 26: (KJV)
37 “And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.�

Mark’s “sore amazed� above has the meaning in Greek of being greatly distressed and implies an internal struggle. Matthew’s “sorrowful� above tones down the internal struggle as the author of Matthew always wants to present Jesus as completely in charge.

“Mark’s� Jesus displays some conflict while “Matthew’s� Jesus does not.


We can summarize these perfection differences as follows:

1) Deficiency in character.

2) Inaccurate quotes of the Tanakh.

3) Limit on Jesus' power.

4) Lack of knowledge.

5) Inability to follow the Law.

6) Testimony that he's (Jesus) not perfect.

7) Struggling with mission.

In conclusion, the quotes above seem to indicate that "Mark" intended to present a Jesus who was not perfect while "Matthew" intended to present a Jesus that was perfect. So, before I present this to the brave and objective Bible scholars at Tweeb do any of you biased and ignorant of the honor/shame society of "Mark's" Jesus Skeptics have anything to edit or do I risk having Tweeb find a fatal flaw in my reasoning here, ripping me a New Testament, and we all pay the Price of another 2,000 years of this superstitous nonsense?



Joseph

OMEN, n.
A sign that something will happen if nothing happens.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

IrishGuy

Ahhh!!! Thats too long for me. Christians would probably discount some of those passages as being out of context, and then attribute the rest to Jesus' human nature. He was fully God while being fully human. That fact, in and of itself, is quite a beefy topic. Its a paradox, but I find it to be glorious one.

Toto

Hi Joel, I don't know if IrishGuy posts on T-web, but if his reaction is typical, you will be casting your pearls before swine, as it were.

I don't see any flaws in your logic. But on the other hand, I don't think that it will destroy the faith of any Christian who does read through the entire piece. I'm sure that there is some handy rationalization for the well known differences between Mark and Matt.

Magdlyn

Most Xtians will admit to never reading/studying the whole Bible. Main reason? Too difficult. Yep. Maybe "too long" as well.

Thank you, JW, for all the work and comparisons.

Benni72

What I'm personally interested in, is the reaction of the mythicists. AFAIK, they generally contend Markan priority. So how do they explain the relatively low Christology of the earlier author and the subsequent deification of Jesus by "Matthew"?

Shameless Hussy

I don't know that it will be a matter of finding flaws in your reasoning, so much as them telling you how they (apologetics) have reasoned it all away. I have a study bible (NIV, not KJV) and can look up some of these "explanations", if you like. Just so you'll have a hint of what they're likely to come back at you with. Unless you're already armed with that info, in which case... good luck!

:rolling:

Shameless Hussy

If by "mythicists" you mean people who contend that Jesus was a mythical figure and not historical... would it not make sense that the myth got polished and "improved" as time went on? Is that not often the way of myth-making?

JoeWallack

JW:
The observation that "Mark", writing first, presented a less than perfect Jesus and "Matthew", using "Mark" as a primary source, evolved "Mark's" Jesus into a perfect Jesus, fits the theory that the Gospels are based to a certain extent on Imagination as opposed to history. If we look for these types of significant differences in Jesus' development over time in the Gospels we see an Evolution of Jesus' entire existence possibly based primMarily on Fiction rather than Fact. The Origin Of Jesucies based on
History would gradually have Less known about him over time as the distance between the History and Evidence available to authors increased. The Origin Of The Jesucies based on Imagination would gradually have More known about him over time as the distance between the time the Character supposedly lived and the time available to the Imagination of authors increased. We can see in the order of composition in the Christian Bible that
subsequent authors know more about their Jesus than predecessors
supporting the theory that their primary source is Imagination rather than History:

1) In "Mark" the starting point is the Baptism where Jesus becomes "the son of god".

2) In what was likely the original "Matthew" used by the Ebionites, Jesus' starting point is birth, but only a natural one.

3) In "Luke" Jesus is born as the son of god, quotation "Marks" removed, and "Mark's" necessary Baptism becomes a theological contradiction and embarrassment for a Gospel claiming Jesus was born the son of god.

4) In "John" Jesus is pushed back to "The Beginning" and now Jesus' Baptism isn't even narrated.

My illustration of "Mark" presenting a less than perfect Jesus and "Matthew" evolving Jesus to a perfect organism fits the theme of subsequent development based on Imagination also because of the certainty/uncertainty issue. A report based closer to actual history should have more certainty in general than a report based farther from history because certainty should decrease with time if it's based on history. That "Matthew" is certain that Jesus was perfect as compared to "Mark" indicates that Imagination is being used rather than history.

At Tweeb where I presented this, JP Holding decided to take the tac of disputing that "Mark" and "Matthew's" Jesucies had different degrees of perfection:

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35643

I've never heard this tac before. Apologists will always argue here that "Mark" showed the human side of Jesus and Phil Indeblank showed the fill-in-the-blank side of Jesus. Where the hell was JP when we were losing the America's Cup to the Kiwis? We sure could have used him. Recently, when I pointed out the Messianic Secret theme of "Mark" Holding "defended" with "Mark" writing to an Honor/Shame Society (apparently another Secret). When I pointed out that "John" explicitly has Jesus declare his candicy for office Holding claimed that John was not writing to an Honor/Shame Society (even though the audience was the same according to Holding). So he may just be trying out new material.



Joseph

MYTHOLOGY, n.
The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished from the true accounts which it invents later.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

JoeWallack

JW:
This is a good question from a relationship between "Mark" and "Matthew" standpoint but regarding the Mythological issue, the question is:

WHAT did Christianity start with?

The earliest known Gospel appears to be "Mark". The Mythicist position starts with the assumption that the Impossible is impossible so at a minimum any part of a Gospel which contains the Impossible is a Myth. Let's take a look at Mark 1 and examine it for Impossible content:

Mark 1 (KJV)
"1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;
7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.
18 And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.
19 And when he had gone a little farther thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets.
20 And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him.
21 And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.
22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.
26 And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.
27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.
28 And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.
29 And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.
30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.
31 And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.
32 And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.
33 And all the city was gathered together at the door.
34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.
35 And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed.
36 And Simon and they that were with him followed after him.
37 And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee.
38 And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.
39 And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.
40 And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
42 And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.
43 And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away;
44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
45 But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter."


Now let's pick out the Impossible:

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

12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.
26 And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.

31 And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.

32 And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.
33 And all the city was gathered together at the door.
34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.

41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
42 And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.


Now let's examine Mark 1 for Possible content in general terms:

1) Jesus speaks.

Even taking this as fitting the Possible category is questionable due to verses above like:

"16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.
18 And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.
19 And when he had gone a little farther thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets.
20 And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him."

which have some implication of an Impossible feature of Jesus' speech like "The Voice" from Dune or at least an old Jewdie Mind Trick. If you go through the rest of "Mark" I think you'll find Chapter 1 representative. Almost all actions of Jesus are Impossible other than speech (which has the qualification above). In my opinion this type of narrative, which is dominated by the Impossible, is much different than the Greco-Roman biographies of the time which were priMarily based on the Possible but had some Impossible thrown in to embellish the account.

The point here is that if the first known Gospel consists primarily of the Impossible, then for someone who starts with the assumption that the Impossible is impossible it is Mythology. "Mark" relative to the other Gospels is closer to Jewish thought in that the Messiah is given Power from God but is not in any way God. As we've seen though a hero who is basically human but has Impossible powers can be the Star of a primarily Impossible (mythological) account. Later authors can upgrade the story to make the hero partially or fully divine (son of god) or even The Big Cheesus (God) but that doesn't change the fact that the story may have started as an Impossible/Mythological story.

Of course it's possible that a primarily Impossible story such as "Mark" was based in some part on a possible story and we just don't have much evidence for this relationship. I believe this is in fact Doherty's main point, if the Christian story was originally based on a historical, possible Jesus, why is there so little evidence for this?

In the Big Picture you have many good questions supporting Doherty's position that have historically been more underdeveloped than Bob Crane's bootleg pictures of Dubya's bachelor party by a horde of Christian theologians masquerading as Bible scholars in the Religious Departments of our Universities:

1) How was it possible for "The Jews" to reject their own Messiah?

2) Why don't we have anything supposedly written by Jesus?

3) Why don't we have anything written by someone who knew Jesus?

4) Why don't we have anyone claiming to be a relative of Jesus or at least an apostle?

5) Why would Jesus' hometown reject him?

6) Why couldn't subsequent Christianity find any evidence of Jesus in his supposed hometown?

7) Why couldn't subsequent Christianity find any evidence of Jesus in Jerusalem?

8) How could someone who never knew Jesus (Paul) become the primary spokesman for him?


Ironically, the answer for the lack of evidence for a possible Jesus may be that it was Christianity itself that unwittingly destroyed the evidence. When subsequent Christianity compared the Impossible accounts of Jesus based on Imagination it always choose to believe and preserve them over possible accounts of Jesus based on History. As part of this process then of the Evolution of the Impossible Jesucies, most of the Evidence for The Origin Of Jesucies was lost/destroyed.



Joseph

MAGIC, n.
An art of converting superstition into coin. There are other arts serving the same high purpose, but the discreet lexicographer does not name them.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Steven Carr

Where exactly was he writing?

http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html

Holding states :-

'Then stay in America. Malina and Neyrey note that "in group-oriented cultures such as the ancient Mediterranean, we must remember that people continually mind each other's business." [183] Privacy was unknown and unexpected. On the one hand, neighbors exerted "constant vigilance" over others; on the other hand, those watched were constantly concerned for appearances, and the associated rewards of honor or sanctions of shame that came with the results.'

So John was nowhere near the Med? Perhaps he was in South America?

Holding continues 'In a society where nothing escaped notice, there was indeed every reason to suppose that people hearing the Gospel message would check against the facts -- especially where a movement with a radical message like Christianity was concerned. The empty tomb would be checked. Matthew's story of resurrected saints would be checked out. Lazarus would be sought out for questioning. Excessive honor claims, such as that Jesus had been vindicated, or his claims to be divine, would have been given close scrutiny.'

So John was writing for an honor society, (whenever it suits JP No Link Holding) to tell his gullible readers that.