The Mystery of Jesus Christ. (Page 84)

Zanjan
Zanjan: Parallax..........your post was too long to read. Unless you're preaching, all you'd need is one or two convincing points.
10 months ago Report
0
ParallaxMan
ParallaxMan:
Eyewitness accounts of Jesus

The inauthenticity of the Gospel of John would seem to be established beyond cavil by the discovery that the very chapter that asserts the author of the book to have been “the disciple whom Jesus loved” [John 21:20] was a late addition to the gospel. Scholars have shown that the gospel originally ended at verses 30-31 of Chapter 20. Chapter 21 – in which verse 24 asserts that “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true” – is not the work of an eye-witness. Like so many other things in the Bible, it is a fraud. The testimony is not true.

But what about the gospel of Mark, the oldest surviving gospel? Attaining essentially its final form probably as late as 90 CE but containing core material dating possibly as early as 70 CE, it omits, as we have seen, almost the entire traditional biography of Jesus, beginning the story with John the Baptist giving Jesus a bath, and ending – in the oldest manuscripts – with women running frightened from the empty tomb. (The alleged postresurrection appearances reported in the last twelve verses of Mark are not found in the earliest manuscripts, even though they are still printed in most modern bibles as though they were an “authentic” part of Mark’s gospel.) Moreover, “Mark” being a non-Palestinian non-disciple, even the skimpy historical detail he provides is untrustworthy.

The…Pauline letters…are so completely silent concerning the events that were later recorded in the gospels as to suggest that these events were not known to Paul, who, however, could not have been ignorant of them if they had really occurred.
These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by calling him ‘of Nazareth’). They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter’s denial of his master. (They do, of course, mention Peter, but do not imply that he, any more than Paul himself, had known Jesus while he had been alive.)
10 months ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Academia seems pretty much agreed on one thing: Paul's authentic letters predate the Gospels. If this is so, and I've seen nothing to suggest it isn't, then what Paul has to say should take presedence over anything we read in later texts. Thus we should accept that there was a Jesus who was crucified, and that over five hundred people claimed to have seen him after his death. Unfortunately, that's about it. Everything else that Paul says about Jesus he claimed to have received via revelation so, if you're a sceptic like me, you'll entertain the notion that he made these latter claims up.
10 months ago Report
1
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: So how is it supposed that the writer of Mark's Gospel gained his information about Jesus? Well, he could have cribbed Paul's letters and then turned to the supposed rich oral tradition that everyone claims existed. But did this oral tradition ever exist, or is it a convenient fiction put about by Biblical scholars who would rather die than admit that the writer of Mark may have made up the majority of his Gospel?
10 months ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Mark explicitly tells us – or rather, has Jesus tell his disciples, in Mark 4:11-12 – that not everyone is meant to ‘perceive’ the meaning of his preachments, and that he actually doesn’t want everyone to be converted and have their sins forgiven:

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but until them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

In other words, Jesus doesn’t want everyone to follow him because that would mean they would all be forgiven for their sins; and he uses parables as a way of concealing the truth from people (or, at best, only partially revealing it), rather than using parables to help them understand. They ‘may hear’, but ‘not understand’: that is his intention.

This idea is taken up in Matthew 13:10-16, where Jesus offers a similar explanation for his use of parables: it is to avoid inspiring everyone else to convert, when they are not meant to ‘understand’ the meaning of Jesus’ teaching. They are meant to ‘see’ but not to ‘perceive’.

What is the purpose of this? The paradox at the heart of the Gospel of Mark seems to be that, whilst Jesus repeatedly demonstrates his supernatural powers – all of that demon-vanquishing and miracle-working – Jesus continually plays down his role as Messiah. This helps to explain why he confides to the disciples that they are privy to the truth, but that the full truth is not to be revealed to everyone else.

What’s more, at numerous points in Mark, Jesus can be perceived as silencing demons which recognise him: see 1:23-24, where a ‘man with an unclean spirit’ cries out: ‘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.’ It is as if the great secret of his true identity must be concealed, rather than spread as far and wide as possible.

Then there’s the question of how the Gospel of Mark ends. The verses 16:9-20 are usually included in translations of the Bible, but two of the most reliable Greek manuscripts omit them, and instead Mark ends abruptly. 16:8 ends Mark on a rather strange and sudden note:

And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Yes, you read the right: the three women who see the empty tomb from which Jesus’ body has disappeared – Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome – all leave the tomb and don’t mention what’s happened to anyone because they’re so frightened by the implication of what they have witnessed. Yet again, we have a refusal to spread the good news. And yet the news spread anyway.

In this – the true conclusion to Mark – we have another paradox and mystery: that, whilst Mark is at pains to highlight Jesus’ divine powers, he downplays the impact of the Resurrection on the spreading of Jesus’ true identity.

In this gospel we first find Peter’s famous confession to Jesus, ‘Thou art the Christ’ (8:29), yet one of the most intriguing things about the Gospel of Mark, in the last analysis, is how often the narrative seems simultaneously to assert Jesus’ special significance while also sweeping its impact to one side.

[ https://interestingliterature.com/2021/06/bible-gospel-of-mark-summary-analysis/ ]
10 months ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Parallax, it doesn’t matter when each book of the Bible was published, or when a line or two was omitted/added. History happens without approval and always on short notice. We need time to catch up and reflect.

For Christians, it took several lifetimes to collect enough original documents to make copy into a book; these were stored carefully in various churches and monasteries in different countries.

During that span, memory was still relatively fresh. Biological families could verify by unbroken remembrance back to the 4th generation ( the recipient of first hand information). That covers 150 years of verification. One can’t sweep these unique memoirs under the carpet. So, for the interim, only the 4 gospels existed.
(Edited by Zanjan)
10 months ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Parallax posits print evidence. Here’s more: Consider the ancient mediums for writing; they used stiff reed nibs and primitive inks that smudged and faded. Mistakes couldn’t be fixed. They didn’t have paper. One can’t continue to copy where the master document is damaged in spots.

Occasionally, they wrote on papyrus (pressed & woven strips of plant stems) but usually parchment (soft, thin, untanned leather). Papyrus didn’t stand up to humidity so could only be used in dry local climates; in Europe (Greece and Rome) it might last 20 years or up to 200 years if carefully preserved.
Another drawback was it was very brittle; couldn’t be folded or creased so had to be wound around a metal or wooden roller - not what a regular person would use to dispatch a letter.

Parchment was far more durable, it could be folded and last up to a thousand years in good condition. For all these reasons, no original texts exist. We’re at the mercy of the ancient copyist, who was also the translator of that particular copy. Therefore, no one can determine who was or wasn’t an eye witness or true author based on lettering or use of language.

Parallax wrote: ““Mark” being a non-Palestinian non-disciple, even the skimpy historical detail he provides is untrustworthy.”

How would we know anything about Mark unless someone mentioned him? If Mark didn’t exist or his work were a fabrication, we’d need to identify the fabricator. In that case, you’d have to agree the fabricator, himself, existed at the time all the other characters did.

10 months ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Ghost : "Paul's authentic letters predate the Gospels"

The Gospels began with Jesus's parents shortly before his birth. The Disciples would have been somewhat younger than Jesus as was the custom for student and teacher. That would include Paul, albeit his first teacher was Gamaliel. Paul became a Christian after the crucifixion.
(Edited by Zanjan)
10 months ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: From Ghost’s article: “Jesus continually plays down his role as Messiah. This helps to explain why he confides to the disciples that they are privy to the truth, but that the full truth is not to be revealed to everyone else.”

The stage is set with the clock at 1 minute after midnight. Jesus asks His disciple what the people are saying about Him.

How could Jesus build a reputation if no one had heard His name? The public isn’t being told outright who Jesus really was because listeners were to discover that for themselves.

““What is the purpose of this?” [secrecy]

The faith was just a new shoot - far too young and tender for novice believers to handle infiltrators and the disingenuous, who would destroy the Revelation’s pristine state before it even opened its second set of leaves. Religion is supposed to be a sanctuary, a refuge from the worldly.

Think of the faith as a haven, and these provisions were the locks on those gates. God has a storehouse of treasures in heaven – He doesn’t give them to the unworthy, only the pure in heart.

Those same parables no longer work like that today – almost everyone understands them because enough time has passed for them to gel. Instead, it’s the prophecies, the antiquated language and dead culture that trips up people.

Reflect a bit on modern security measures – in just one generation, we went from using keys to codes to swipe cards. Do you think God wasn’t able to beat that by a dozen?
10 months ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: “Jesus can be perceived as silencing demons which recognise him:…….”

Everybody has enemies – they’re the first to recognize your values aren’t their values. Oil and water don’t mix. The clergy were vipers, well aware Jesus wasn’t like them. Prideful and unjust individuals are prejudiced against those who are different than themselves.

Who doesn’t know what racism is? It’s fear of the unknown. Exactly the same principle here.

However, those so called “demons” weren’t afraid. Unlike the prideful, they were sinners who knew they deserved punishment. When Jesus approached them, they believed the time for their reckoning had come. Did Jesus punish them?

(Edited by Zanjan)
10 months ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: “all leave the tomb and don’t mention what’s happened to anyone because they’re so frightened by the implication of what they have witnessed.”

He's got a theory there. I have another one – that they weren’t afraid of what they’d witnessed but that people wouldn’t believe them. Non-believers would think they either deliberately contrived the story or their imagination had run off on them, as it does with fanatics.

10 months ago Report
0
ParallaxMan
ParallaxMan: Genesis 1:2 reads, ‘… and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters’. The Hebrew word ruach used by Moses can mean ‘spirit’ or ‘wind’, and that ties well with the parting of the Red Sea story where, it has since been concluded, a strong wind across a reef urged the waters back allowing the isrealites to pass. Moses, naturally, recounts events in dreams, and wrote stories at the behest of his God. There's a supernatural context to God. He creates things and destroys things, and someone dreams of this and writes a story of it, claiming it must have been God telling him what to write.

Consider this: a lorry skids off the road and mounts the sidewalk, narrowly missing three men; a christian, an atheist and a catholic.
The christian say, "God saved me!"
The atheist says, "That was close, had I been standing one inch to the right, that lorry would have flattened me.
The catholic says, i repented my sins as the lorry hurtled toward me and God intervened, saving my life.
10 months ago Report
1
Zanjan
Zanjan: You cant use the Old Testament to reject the existence and truths of New Testament writers. Each Book has to be weighed by its own merits.

All you can do with the OT is use it to support all future Holy Books.

"Consider this: a lorry skids off the road and mounts the sidewalk......."

Now we know you've either been living in Great Britain for longer than 15 years, OR you're faking your national residence, OR you copy pasted that from a website. I'm open to more options. Obviously, language has its limitations.

10 months ago Report
0
ParallaxMan
ParallaxMan: Theists are generally American. The British are far too civilised.
10 months ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Yeah? Well, I recall the royals used to kill off family members so they could seize the throne and be head of the church. Rivalry continued between denominations and even when parliament was introduced. Through it all, the people didn't seem to care; they chose sides according to the size of carrot offered to them. Still, they never stopped celebrating Christmas.

Somehow you think the people have changed?
(Edited by Zanjan)
10 months ago Report
0
ParallaxMan
ParallaxMan: There was no christmas when the purists banned it. Fortunately, some years later they changed their minds. It's outrageous the things theists do for their perceived God.
10 months ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: "The Gospels began with Jesus's parents shortly before his birth."

Mmm, it just goes to show what a succession of late nights does to a person. Opening the Gospel of Mark I was always under the impression that it starts with Jesus aiming to get baptised by John, but it seems I'm mistaken. Written in invisible ink is a whole section devoted to Jesus' parents.
10 months ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Do we know how old Paul was when Jesus was crucified? If we do, somebody's keeping the information well hidden.
10 months ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Did Jesus build a reputation for himself? If he did, it seems to have bypassed Paul.
10 months ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Let's, just once, be honest. Jesus was a marginal figure who was too unimportant for any historian at the time he was crucified to jot down his passing. It was only when Paul appeared on the scene and elevated him to a dying and rising god that his future was assured.
10 months ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Do demons still possess people, or have they found something better to do with their time? Perhaps hell has installed cable tv and all the darling demons are all sat on the sofa watching it.
10 months ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: If we are talking about the women running away from the open tomb and not telling anyone that it was empty, why would they think the disciples wouldn't believe them? Didn't Jesus tell his followers three times that he would rise from death?
10 months ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: If the Old Testament is puffed-up nonesense, it's claims about God are without merit. If that's the case, as it surely is, then why should we suppose that the New Testament is any more reliable?
10 months ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Ghost: “I was always under the impression that it starts with Jesus aiming to get baptised by John, but it seems I'm mistaken.”

Forgive me but that’s just the sort of thing I’d expect a man to say. You’ve passed over Mary, who endured horrid things while testifying to the advent. That was THE good news – long awaited by the Jews. Remember the old Jewish woman at the Temple, who said she could now die happy after having met the newborn messiah. She didn’t need to hear what He had to say to be grateful.

Joseph, being the usual man with a double standard, had to get over his own pride and prejudice before he was willing to trust God and recognize the station of his betrothed. Even after dutifully rising to the occasion, he still doesn’t come off as being excited about it. Geez!
10 months ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Scholars have estimated Paul’s age when he died based on when his writings ended. Just work back 30 years to the date of the crucifixion. Considering his Jewish rank, he had to be close to the same age as Jesus. I don’t see why Paul’s age would have been important. Then age of Jesus, yes.

“Do demons still possess people?”

Mostly, they just haunt them. Those with OCD and serial killers are possessed – not in the same class though. OCD is legal.
10 months ago Report
0