Before Mark's Gospel
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-04-2017, 10:10 AM
RE: Before Mark's Gospel
What Bucky wrote is true. The oldest extant gospel of Mark is in the Codex Vaticanus from 300 ACE. It's been photocopied and online for everyone to view. It's in Greek but you can use the numbering system in the margins to follow along. The end of Mark stops 16:8. The last paragraph was written and added several centuries later. Here's the Codex Vaticanus:

http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03

Some of the early church fathers wrote about the ending of Mark not having a resurrection scene.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
18-04-2017, 10:13 AM
RE: Before Mark's Gospel
(18-04-2017 08:30 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  Paul mentions the crucifixion and resurrection, around 22 years after the event. But apparently, as the other books are added (Mark, Matthew, Luke etc), they become more miraculous in content.

Not sure what point Evid3nc3 was trying to make here because, of all the miracles performed, surely the greatest would be the rising from the dead, which Paul speaks of in the earlier letters mentioned above.

I thought the earliest accounts we had of Jesus was Mark's gosepl which was about 40 (?) years after Jesus' death but with Paul's above letters, we're looking at just over 20 years. That said, Paul never actually met Jesus in the flesh.

Just spitballing here, but anyone familiar with any of this, opinions?
Yes the Pauline letters are far older than any of the gospels, by at least a generation.

I think the point is that Paul's description of Jesus is far more "spiritualized" and less physical. Paul's Jesus is almost a celestial being, if you read Paul's writing without assuming the Gospel narrative. Which is hard to do when you know the gospel narrative and the gospels have been collected into the NT such that they are BEFORE Paul's writings even though chronologically that is backwards. But just try it sometime. Read Paul pretending you're completely ignorant of the gospel accounts, and what you will find is that Jesus is "seated in the heavenlies". Now we read that as, sure, he died on the cross, came back to life for a bit, then went to heaven. But that information comes from the gospels. Read by itself, Jesus is just another invisible heavenly character, not a flesh-and-blood, miracle-working god-man. You'll find precious little support in Paul for the notion that Jesus was the latter.

Next, as early as some of Paul's stuff was penned, there would have still been contemporaries of Jesus alive ... if you were Paul, would you not appeal to these eyewitnesses as proof of the alleged earthly events of Jesus' ministry? Would that not be far more potent than lamely claiming that you had a personal subjective experience -- that god "caught you up into heaven" and revealed the truths you are preaching? The most charitable face you can put on it is that Paul had a more "spiritual", gnostic take on Jesus that competed with the testimony of living witnesses. You could also legitimately suspect that Peter et al, were not even making the wild miraculous claims that were eventually set down in the Gospels; instead, he was simply pushing a Messianic Jewish sect founded by one of many itinerant apocalyptic preachers, who was killed by the Romans.

It's my view that the Gospels were a mythos set down much later, after most, if not all, of the eyewitnesses that could contradict it were dead, that transformed Jesus into Super Bible Jesus™, the miracle-working god-man. By this time, there was some organized church leadership that could be trying to push back against the still very successful gnostic sub-sect, and indeed, the gnostics were not conclusively deemed heretical until the 3rd century, when these gospels were chosen by church councils, as the official and approved narrative of Jesus' life.

In fact my personal view is that the Jesus that the mythos is based on is mostly likely a composite character or a complete fiction. But if he was a real person, he was an itinerant apocalyptic preacher who may well not have had any real pretensions to godhood. At most, he was a bit more effective and charismatic and ended up establishing some following that survived his death, which may or may not have been a Roman crucifixion.

Some of my other reasons for believing Jesus to be largely or entirely fictional, and the Bible Jesus to be totally made up, is the total lack of secular sources for any of the incredible events related in the gospels. The sun going dark, the temple split in two, zombies walking around Jerusalem, hundreds claiming to have seen a resurrected Jesus in a glorified body ... there is no HINT of this in the public record. We have old warehouse receipts and legal documents and tax information and all sorts of far more prosaic data but NOTHING, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA about all these goings on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like mordant's post
18-04-2017, 10:41 AM
RE: Before Mark's Gospel
(18-04-2017 09:51 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  
(18-04-2017 09:19 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I don't understand the question. HuhHuh
I didn't pose a question so much as I was just making a few observations and putting them out there.

I feel better now. Big Grin

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
18-04-2017, 11:12 AM
RE: Before Mark's Gospel
(18-04-2017 10:13 AM)mordant Wrote:  
(18-04-2017 08:30 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  Paul mentions the crucifixion and resurrection, around 22 years after the event. But apparently, as the other books are added (Mark, Matthew, Luke etc), they become more miraculous in content.

Not sure what point Evid3nc3 was trying to make here because, of all the miracles performed, surely the greatest would be the rising from the dead, which Paul speaks of in the earlier letters mentioned above.

I thought the earliest accounts we had of Jesus was Mark's gosepl which was about 40 (?) years after Jesus' death but with Paul's above letters, we're looking at just over 20 years. That said, Paul never actually met Jesus in the flesh.

Just spitballing here, but anyone familiar with any of this, opinions?
Yes the Pauline letters are far older than any of the gospels, by at least a generation.

I think the point is that Paul's description of Jesus is far more "spiritualized" and less physical. Paul's Jesus is almost a celestial being, if you read Paul's writing without assuming the Gospel narrative. Which is hard to do when you know the gospel narrative and the gospels have been collected into the NT such that they are BEFORE Paul's writings even though chronologically that is backwards. But just try it sometime. Read Paul pretending you're completely ignorant of the gospel accounts, and what you will find is that Jesus is "seated in the heavenlies". Now we read that as, sure, he died on the cross, came back to life for a bit, then went to heaven. But that information comes from the gospels. Read by itself, Jesus is just another invisible heavenly character, not a flesh-and-blood, miracle-working god-man. You'll find precious little support in Paul for the notion that Jesus was the latter.

Next, as early as some of Paul's stuff was penned, there would have still been contemporaries of Jesus alive ... if you were Paul, would you not appeal to these eyewitnesses as proof of the alleged earthly events of Jesus' ministry? Would that not be far more potent than lamely claiming that you had a personal subjective experience -- that god "caught you up into heaven" and revealed the truths you are preaching? The most charitable face you can put on it is that Paul had a more "spiritual", gnostic take on Jesus that competed with the testimony of living witnesses. You could also legitimately suspect that Peter et al, were not even making the wild miraculous claims that were eventually set down in the Gospels; instead, he was simply pushing a Messianic Jewish sect founded by one of many itinerant apocalyptic preachers, who was killed by the Romans.

It's my view that the Gospels were a mythos set down much later, after most, if not all, of the eyewitnesses that could contradict it were dead, that transformed Jesus into Super Bible Jesus™, the miracle-working god-man. By this time, there was some organized church leadership that could be trying to push back against the still very successful gnostic sub-sect, and indeed, the gnostics were not conclusively deemed heretical until the 3rd century, when these gospels were chosen by church councils, as the official and approved narrative of Jesus' life.

In fact my personal view is that the Jesus that the mythos is based on is mostly likely a composite character or a complete fiction. But if he was a real person, he was an itinerant apocalyptic preacher who may well not have had any real pretensions to godhood. At most, he was a bit more effective and charismatic and ended up establishing some following that survived his death, which may or may not have been a Roman crucifixion.

Some of my other reasons for believing Jesus to be largely or entirely fictional, and the Bible Jesus to be totally made up, is the total lack of secular sources for any of the incredible events related in the gospels. The sun going dark, the temple split in two, zombies walking around Jerusalem, hundreds claiming to have seen a resurrected Jesus in a glorified body ... there is no HINT of this in the public record. We have old warehouse receipts and legal documents and tax information and all sorts of far more prosaic data but NOTHING, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA about all these goings on.

This is a good thread to bring this up in, we catch the gospel writers just making shit up in a couple of places, one of the most hilarious examples in the bible is in Matthew where Jesus rides a foal and an ass into Jerusalem.

Matthew interpreted a passage in Zechariah 9:9 as referring to two different animals, he misinterpreted it and wrote his story with the misinterpretation intact!

So we get this ridiculous scene of Jesus riding an ass and a foal at the same time in Matthew. The same story in Mark, Luke and John put Jesus' ass on one ass because they didn't misinterpret that passage like that, however they all misinterpreted that passage as a reference to Jesus as it clearly references a king whose dominion extends "from sea even to sea". That simply isn't Jesus. Facepalm

So in this little verse you have one blatant misinterpretation in regards to how this alleged messiah fulfilled the prophecy that Mathew was blatantly shoe-horning Jesus into as well as the broader misinterpretation that this particular passage was a prophecy about Jesus, which it obviously is not.

This is not the only place this is done, just compare the two entirely different birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, they are a bunch of contrived nonsense to shoe-horn their messiah character into different prophecies which are obvious misinterpretations, but they create contradictory stories to do this.

It's a pattern that they repeat over and over:

1. Misinterpret an Old Testament scripture

2. Write your messiah character as fulfilling your misinterpreted verse.

You can make these stories seem truly remarkable and prophetic by doing this.

That's the thing with this prophecy crap, one verse can have multiple layers of deception injected into it. When you become aware of shenanigans like this, these biblical writers rapidly lose all credibility.

They blatantly make shit up and misinterpret a host of OT scripture to force their messiah construct upon it.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
18-04-2017, 11:39 AM
RE: Before Mark's Gospel
(18-04-2017 10:13 AM)mordant Wrote:  
(18-04-2017 08:30 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  Paul mentions the crucifixion and resurrection, around 22 years after the event. But apparently, as the other books are added (Mark, Matthew, Luke etc), they become more miraculous in content.

Not sure what point Evid3nc3 was trying to make here because, of all the miracles performed, surely the greatest would be the rising from the dead, which Paul speaks of in the earlier letters mentioned above.

I thought the earliest accounts we had of Jesus was Mark's gosepl which was about 40 (?) years after Jesus' death but with Paul's above letters, we're looking at just over 20 years. That said, Paul never actually met Jesus in the flesh.

Just spitballing here, but anyone familiar with any of this, opinions?
Yes the Pauline letters are far older than any of the gospels, by at least a generation.

I think the point is that Paul's description of Jesus is far more "spiritualized" and less physical. Paul's Jesus is almost a celestial being, if you read Paul's writing without assuming the Gospel narrative. Which is hard to do when you know the gospel narrative and the gospels have been collected into the NT such that they are BEFORE Paul's writings even though chronologically that is backwards. But just try it sometime. Read Paul pretending you're completely ignorant of the gospel accounts, and what you will find is that Jesus is "seated in the heavenlies". Now we read that as, sure, he died on the cross, came back to life for a bit, then went to heaven. But that information comes from the gospels. Read by itself, Jesus is just another invisible heavenly character, not a flesh-and-blood, miracle-working god-man. You'll find precious little support in Paul for the notion that Jesus was the latter.

Next, as early as some of Paul's stuff was penned, there would have still been contemporaries of Jesus alive ... if you were Paul, would you not appeal to these eyewitnesses as proof of the alleged earthly events of Jesus' ministry? Would that not be far more potent than lamely claiming that you had a personal subjective experience -- that god "caught you up into heaven" and revealed the truths you are preaching? The most charitable face you can put on it is that Paul had a more "spiritual", gnostic take on Jesus that competed with the testimony of living witnesses. You could also legitimately suspect that Peter et al, were not even making the wild miraculous claims that were eventually set down in the Gospels; instead, he was simply pushing a Messianic Jewish sect founded by one of many itinerant apocalyptic preachers, who was killed by the Romans.

It's my view that the Gospels were a mythos set down much later, after most, if not all, of the eyewitnesses that could contradict it were dead, that transformed Jesus into Super Bible Jesus™, the miracle-working god-man. By this time, there was some organized church leadership that could be trying to push back against the still very successful gnostic sub-sect, and indeed, the gnostics were not conclusively deemed heretical until the 3rd century, when these gospels were chosen by church councils, as the official and approved narrative of Jesus' life.

In fact my personal view is that the Jesus that the mythos is based on is mostly likely a composite character or a complete fiction. But if he was a real person, he was an itinerant apocalyptic preacher who may well not have had any real pretensions to godhood. At most, he was a bit more effective and charismatic and ended up establishing some following that survived his death, which may or may not have been a Roman crucifixion.

Some of my other reasons for believing Jesus to be largely or entirely fictional, and the Bible Jesus to be totally made up, is the total lack of secular sources for any of the incredible events related in the gospels. The sun going dark, the temple split in two, zombies walking around Jerusalem, hundreds claiming to have seen a resurrected Jesus in a glorified body ... there is no HINT of this in the public record. We have old warehouse receipts and legal documents and tax information and all sorts of far more prosaic data but NOTHING, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA about all these goings on.
Very thought provoking. It reminds me of a book I heard about years ago that dealt with the type of Jesus Paul taught about and how it differed from later writings. Something like that.

Thanks for the reply

“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.” ~ Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2017, 11:40 AM
RE: Before Mark's Gospel
(18-04-2017 10:41 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(18-04-2017 09:51 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  I didn't pose a question so much as I was just making a few observations and putting them out there.

I feel better now. Big Grin
Thumbsup

“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.” ~ Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2017, 12:22 PM
RE: Before Mark's Gospel
(18-04-2017 11:12 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  This is a good thread to bring this up in, we catch the gospel writers just making shit up in a couple of places, one of the most hilarious examples in the bible is in Matthew where Jesus rides a foal and an ass into Jerusalem.

Matthew interpreted a passage in Zechariah 9:9 as referring to two different animals, he misinterpreted it and wrote his story with the misinterpretation intact!

So we get this ridiculous scene of Jesus riding an ass and a foal at the same time in Matthew. The same story in Mark, Luke and John put Jesus' ass on one ass because they didn't misinterpret that passage like that, however they all misinterpreted that passage as a reference to Jesus as it clearly references a king whose dominion extends "from sea even to sea". That simply isn't Jesus. Facepalm

So in this little verse you have one blatant misinterpretation in regards to how this alleged messiah fulfilled the prophecy that Mathew was blatantly shoe-horning Jesus into as well as the broader misinterpretation that this particular passage was a prophecy about Jesus, which it obviously is not.

This is not the only place this is done, just compare the two entirely different birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, they are a bunch of contrived nonsense to shoe-horn their messiah character into different prophecies which are obvious misinterpretations, but they create contradictory stories to do this.

It's a pattern that they repeat over and over:

1. Misinterpret an Old Testament scripture

2. Write your messiah character as fulfilling your misinterpreted verse.

You can make these stories seem truly remarkable and prophetic by doing this.

That's the thing with this prophecy crap, one verse can have multiple layers of deception injected into it. When you become aware of shenanigans like this, these biblical writers rapidly lose all credibility.

They blatantly make shit up and misinterpret a host of OT scripture to force their messiah construct upon it.
I remember reading about this in the past, and the apologetics for it. I can't remember the details though so I will probably revisit the topic again.

“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.” ~ Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2017, 12:26 PM
RE: Before Mark's Gospel
(18-04-2017 11:12 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  They blatantly make shit up and misinterpret a host of OT scripture to force their messiah construct upon it.

Don't forget the zombie invasion of Jerusalem. Thumbsup

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
18-04-2017, 12:57 PM
RE: Before Mark's Gospel
(18-04-2017 10:13 AM)mordant Wrote:  Some of my other reasons for believing Jesus to be largely or entirely fictional, and the Bible Jesus to be totally made up, is the total lack of secular sources for any of the incredible events related in the gospels. The sun going dark, the temple split in two, zombies walking around Jerusalem, hundreds claiming to have seen a resurrected Jesus in a glorified body ... there is no HINT of this in the public record. We have old warehouse receipts and legal documents and tax information and all sorts of far more prosaic data but NOTHING, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA about all these goings on.

Precisely.
If the temple curtain had spontaneously been torn in two, on Passover weekend, (or ever), one of the Jews, who wrote about far more mundane things, as you say, would have said something about it, or commented on how it portended the destruction... something ... anything. If, as in Matthew, there was a zombie invasion of Jerusalem, rocks split, graves opened, etc, someone would have said something. AND, if they had gone to all the trouble to find and arrest Jesus, then heard he was still walking around Jerusalem, either the Jews or the Romans would have mounted a search, and looked for him, if he was enough of a nuisance to execute during Passover week. It just makes no sense at all.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2017, 01:17 PM
RE: Before Mark's Gospel
(18-04-2017 08:30 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  I was watching this video by Evid3nc3 (no need to watch it):





At around 10m 22s he mentions that 1 Thessalonians, Galatians and 1 Corinthians were all written before Mark's gospel and that they were written by Paul.

Paul mentions the crucifixion and resurrection, around 22 years after the event. But apparently, as the other books are added (Mark, Matthew, Luke etc), they become more miraculous in content.

Not sure what point Evid3nc3 was trying to make here because, of all the miracles performed, surely the greatest would be the rising from the dead, which Paul speaks of in the earlier letters mentioned above.

I thought the earliest accounts we had of Jesus was Mark's gosepl which was about 40 (?) years after Jesus' death but with Paul's above letters, we're looking at just over 20 years. That said, Paul never actually met Jesus in the flesh.

Just spitballing here, but anyone familiar with any of this, opinions?

Papias, a second generation Christian, wrote that Mark was somebody who listened to Peter preach in Rome and wrote down what he heard, but not in an orderly manner. Some scholars have speculated that Papis' Mark was the root of the gospel of Mark. Maybe, maybe not.

https://ehrmanblog.org/papias-on-matthew-and-mark/

There have been quite a number of speculations about all of this. But if Papias' Mark had nothing to do with Mark, and his Matthew has nothing to do with the Gospel of Matthew, then both men's works were lost early on. Mighty careless of them.

Yog Sothoth! Yog Sothoth! Come back old ones! Yog Sothoth!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: