Loomis

The story of the Miracle of Fishes goes like this:

Simon (aka Peter) was in his boat with his buddies and they were fishing all night. They didn’t catch anything and felt defeated. They were returning to the shore when Jesus instructed them to cast their nets one more time. They followed Jesus’ instructions and as a result they caught a shitload of fish. It was a miracle!

Now here is the problem:

Mark 1, Luke 5, and Matthew 4, say that this happened before Jesus was crucified. But John 21 says it happened after Jesus was crucified.

Here is a typical Christian perspective concerning the account in Luke 5:
Note that the reference to Luke 4:4-9 is a typo. They mean Luke 5:4-9.

Of course that footnote was written by Christians for Christians, so it is unfathomable for them to consider any reconciliation that would point to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was written as fiction. In a nutshell - they realize that something is fucked up but they can’t make heads or tails of it.

However I don’t have that hang-up. So here is what I would like you (yes, you) to consider:

In some circles the story of the life of Jesus Christ included the literary device of nonlinear storytelling.

Let me explain, but first keep this in mind:

• Mark was the first story written about Jesus, and all other Gospels are dependent on it.
• The original ending for Gospel of Mark came at 16:8. The rest was added later.
• The character named Simon was renamed Peter. (They are the same character.)

Now lets look at the original ending of Mark:

… as they went into the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has been raised! He is not here. Look, there is the place where they laid him. But go tell his disciples, even Peter, that he is going ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you.”

The young man says Jesus will appear to Simon (aka Peter) in Galilee. But the story fails to relate it. It just ends. It leaves you hanging. :worried:

WTF? :wide:

Now compare that to something earlier in Mark 1:14-20:

… Jesus went into Galilee and proclaimed the gospel of God. He said, “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel!” As he went along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew, Simon’s brother, casting a net into the sea ...

Did you notice what I noticed?

The story appears to be looping around in time from the point of Jesus’ resurrection to the point earlier in the story where he meets Simon (aka Peter) in Galilee. It suggests that the whole earthly ministry of Jesus in Mark was not literal history but appearances of "risen Jesus" to the apostles.

Am I making any sense?

Clivedurdle

And to make it worse John 21 mentions 153 - a direct steal from a fishy story from Plato. Oops Shum Mishtake ! :devil1:

(But there is nothing pagan or astrological in the NT of course!):banghead:

(Is John the earliest Gospel?)

Loomis

Who is arguing that there is nothing pagan or astrological in the NT?

I think the point that Malachi151 is making (in the other thread) is that the story of Jesus Christ originated with Jewish thought.

Loomis

I don’t think so. It looks to me like John is fleshing out this “time travel” issue that originated in Mark.

It looks like he deliberately placed the Miracle of Fishes after the crucifixion to draw attention to the “mind fuck” that existed in the earlier story.

Malachi151

That is very interesting, and why I love the Gospel of Mark.

I don't know if tis just a coincidence or not, I haven't really thought about it yet, but the idea that the author of Mark could have been an early Quentin Tarantino is amusing

Loomis

Wait. That’s nothing. It gets better.

In Mark (the oldest Gospel) the story of Jesus Christ begins with his baptism.

Right?

Then he meets Simon (Peter) in Galilee.

Right?

Now check out Romans 6:1~4

What shall we say then? Are we to remain in sin so that grace may increase? Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life.

Do you see what is going on here?

The baptism of Jesus (which preceded his appearance in Galilee) would be symbolic of his death and resurrection.

Or at least that's how the author of Romans 6 saw it.

The story of Jesus is a divine Mobius-strip.

Is that a mind fuck? Or what?

Malachi151

Well, don't get too carried away. That might be reading too much into it, but it is certainly an interesting possibility.

mountainman

Render unto Caesar is written on the first side
of the mobius papyri, what's written on the other
side is immaterial to reality.

But why the fuck is it divine?
Surely the fraud was sponsored.
WINK. WINK.

So what's the difference between
divine and supreme and imperial?


Its a total mind fuck Inspector Loomis.
But who had the power to fuck around
with the minds of the citizens of the
Roman Empire Inspector Loomis?

Specifically, which Pontifex Maximus?
And when was the Historia Augusta
written?


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Toto

Let me be the first to tell you that a Möbius strip has only one side.

Loomis

Don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

What else could it possibly mean? And while you’re at it find a reason why John places his “Miracle of Fishes” after the crucifixion.

I understand your skepticism completely. I’m not insisting that this view was widespread. But it looks to me like the authors of John 21 and Romans 6 were keenly aware of it.

I wonder if there is any support for this outside of the bible?