independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > How can we [as Christians] defend The Gospel of Mark?!
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 09/08/21 10:58am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

How can we [as Christians] defend The Gospel of Mark?!


It appears the first gospel Mark, written a good number of years before the others, contains the least amount of story. Missing from its content is any mention of the Virgin Birth, and in the original book form - before addendums were added much later - the Resurrection of Jesus is not witnessed by anyone personally, and only hinted at by some young dude, not even depicted as an angel.

Is it necessary to account for these omissions in order to maintain integrity of the Christian faith?! Or is it sufficient simply to put more trust in the other gospels and leverage belief in the Messiah that way?


The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 09/08/21 1:29pm

toejam

avatar

The Gospels make best sense as early Christian extended propaganda tracts about their fallen hero from a bygone generation. It would be a mistake to think they are inerrently describing history without their fair share of artistic embellishment, legendary accretion, unintentional errors, and some lies thrown in to boot. This goes as much for the Gospel of Mark as it does for any of the others.

.

We can't know why the author of Mark didn't include the Virgin Birth story. Most likely, I suspect, is that the idea hadn't popped into anyone's head yet. It is not only missing from Mark, but the rest of the New Testament (sparing the contradictory accounts in the early chapters of Matthew and Luke). It is missing from the earlier-composed authentic Pauline epistles, the forged ones, the other apostolic epistles (probably all of which are also forged), the several 'gospel summarizing' speeches in Acts, and also in Revelation.

.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 09/08/21 1:58pm

fortuneandsere
ndipity

^ Thank you! You've just converted me to atheism. smile


The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 09/08/21 5:18pm

TrivialPursuit

avatar

fortuneandserendipity said:


It appears the first gospel Mark, written a good number of years before the others, contains the least amount of story. Missing from its content is any mention of the Virgin Birth, and in the original book form - before addendums were added much later - the Resurrection of Jesus is not witnessed by anyone personally, and only hinted at by some young dude, not even depicted as an angel.

Is it necessary to account for these omissions in order to maintain integrity of the Christian faith?! Or is it sufficient simply to put more trust in the other gospels and leverage belief in the Messiah that way?



Is... is this for real?

You should seriously read The Gospels In Brief by Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy became a born again Christian later in life, and was a vehement anarchist and Christian. He wrote a lot about Christ and Christianity. He wrote critically of the Russian Orthodox Church, and was eventually excommunicated because of his writings. (They got butthurt over it.)

The book in question takes all four gospels and boils them into one continued narrative. He notes where every line comes from in the gospels (sort of a "proof" that all four were included). It's not a huge book, but it keeps the gospels' timelines in order, as well as lays out the details from all stories.

Remember, Luke was a physician, so his description of Christ's torture and crucifixion tend to be more detailed than Matthew, Mark, or John. So you don't get that in Mark or John, but you also get other details in those you may not get in Luke, etc etc.

Wikipedia footnotes an article, and notes, "The Gospel in Brief is said to be the result of Tolstoy's close study of the original Koine Greek New Testament." It's a good reference guide to have in your library.

Just on a personal note: Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You is a favorite, and really changed so much of what I thought I was supposed to believe. Tolstoy focuses (in other non-fiction books, as well) on Jesus's personal message to those around him, opposed to the supernatural aspects of his story. In TKOGIWY, he concentrates on The Beatitudes and its message and really brushes aside the traditionalism in Christianity that often overlooks simply humanity.

"eye don’t really care so much what people say about me because it is a reflection of who they r."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 09/08/21 5:40pm

fortuneandsere
ndipity

^ It's too late! I'm already an atheist. There's no going back now. But I also want to make clear, atheism is not a religion. It is a way of thinking rationally about the world, using empiricism backed up by scientific data to validate proofs. This can never be achieved by any religion.

To reconvert me back to Christianity you would have to wall off the critical thinking part of my brain, TrivialPursuit, and that, short of a Hannibal style lobotomy, just isn't gonna happen! smile


The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 09/08/21 6:04pm

IanRG

TrivialPursuit said:

fortuneandserendipity said:


It appears the first gospel Mark, written a good number of years before the others, contains the least amount of story. Missing from its content is any mention of the Virgin Birth, and in the original book form - before addendums were added much later - the Resurrection of Jesus is not witnessed by anyone personally, and only hinted at by some young dude, not even depicted as an angel.

Is it necessary to account for these omissions in order to maintain integrity of the Christian faith?! Or is it sufficient simply to put more trust in the other gospels and leverage belief in the Messiah that way?



Is... is this for real?

You should seriously read The Gospels In Brief by Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy became a born again Christian later in life, and was a vehement anarchist and Christian. He wrote a lot about Christ and Christianity. He wrote critically of the Russian Orthodox Church, and was eventually excommunicated because of his writings. (They got butthurt over it.)

The book in question takes all four gospels and boils them into one continued narrative. He notes where every line comes from in the gospels (sort of a "proof" that all four were included). It's not a huge book, but it keeps the gospels' timelines in order, as well as lays out the details from all stories.

Remember, Luke was a physician, so his description of Christ's torture and crucifixion tend to be more detailed than Matthew, Mark, or John. So you don't get that in Mark or John, but you also get other details in those you may not get in Luke, etc etc.

Wikipedia footnotes an article, and notes, "The Gospel in Brief is said to be the result of Tolstoy's close study of the original Koine Greek New Testament." It's a good reference guide to have in your library.

Just on a personal note: Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You is a favorite, and really changed so much of what I thought I was supposed to believe. Tolstoy focuses (in other non-fiction books, as well) on Jesus's personal message to those around him, opposed to the supernatural aspects of his story. In TKOGIWY, he concentrates on The Beatitudes and its message and really brushes aside the traditionalism in Christianity that often overlooks simply humanity.

.

No, it is not for real, it is just a bait and troll thread.

.

Note: He is not a Christian despite the wording of the title saiying "we [as christians]" and he added an anti religion line to his tag just before started this thread to say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down."

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 09/08/21 6:27pm

TrivialPursuit

avatar

IanRG said:

No, it is not for real, it is just a bait and troll thread.

.

Note: He is not a Christian despite the wording of the title saiying "we [as christians]" and he added an anti religion line to his tag just before started this thread to say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down."


I mean, we can smell it a mile off. lol But I wanted to offer my 2¢ anyway, for those that can use the information.

Anynoe who doesn't... well, that's not my bid'ness. I've no interest in converting him or anyone else. But I appreciate you saying something.

"eye don’t really care so much what people say about me because it is a reflection of who they r."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 09/08/21 7:06pm

fortuneandsere
ndipity

"We [as Christians]" is merely my way of saying I was brought up in a Christian country and went to church as a Christian, even if somewhat against my will neutral. Some children that attend church aren't doing so willingly, and so may be experiencing a strange kind of brainwashing.

Meant to say before, toejam post had "strengthened" my atheism. Came out wrong in my exuberance!


The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 09/09/21 12:53am

toejam

avatar

IanRG said:
No, it is not for real, it is just a bait and troll thread.

.

Yes, it does seem to be a bait and troll thread, but that aside, there's nothing incorrect in what he states about the Gospel of Mark:

1) Mark is widely understood to be the earliest surviving of the Gospel genre, usually dated c.70CE, with the others c.80-120CE.

2) Mark is the shortest of the canonical Gospels.

3) Mark does lack mention of the Virgin Birth.

4) Resurreaction Appearances are missing in the earliest manuscripts, with the text concluding after 16:8.

5) It might be implied that the "young man" in the tomb in Mark is an angel, however it's not entirely clear. He's only ever described as a "young man" in Mark.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 09/09/21 1:46am

IanRG

toejam said:

IanRG said:
No, it is not for real, it is just a bait and troll thread.

.

Yes, it does seem to be a bait and troll thread, but that aside, there's nothing incorrect in what he states about the Gospel of Mark:

1) Mark is widely understood to be the earliest surviving of the Gospel genre, usually dated c.70CE, with the others c.80-120CE.

2) Mark is the shortest of the canonical Gospels.

3) Mark does lack mention of the Virgin Birth.

4) Resurreaction Appearances are missing in the earliest manuscripts, with the text concluding after 16:8.

5) It might be implied that the "young man" in the tomb in Mark is an angel, however it's not entirely clear. He's only ever described as a "young man" in Mark.

.

But he has demonstrated time and time again that the troll is his sole objective regardless of the topic.

.

He started with a lie - he is not a Christian. The excuse that he was made to go to church as a child does not change this.

.

He further added to his tag a deliberate dig at religious people.

.

Further to that he has attacked people's mental capability if they disagree with him.

.

And he lied that you converted him to be an atheist.

.

Hence trolls They have no integrity.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 09/09/21 7:58am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

^ But in that wrong-headed diatribe you failed to address any of the points. Theologians can't argue with the above facts. Therefore, the grounds on which believers base their validity of the Gospels is shaky to say the least.

You also said in an earlier thread:

IanRG said:

All of what we have learned and determined through the Holy Spirit only has meaning because Jesus is the Son of God. All the back and forward between toejam and any one who allows him to hijack a thread with his conspiracy theories is simply determined by the answer to the question - Is Jesus as Christians understand him to be?

All of toejam's dross falls from what he imagines to be gold to reveal his arguments are just lead if Christians are right about his Resurrection.


So just as numerous times you've called me a troll but most times been wrong about, here you are attacking someone else for 'hijacking' and 'conspiracy theories', evidence for which doesn't hold up by the way!
Way to show your true colours, Ian.

Notice the two obvious assumptions you make in above post, which quite rightly any atheist or even agnostic sitting on the fence would take issue with.
Definitively stating "Jesus is the Son of God" or that "Christians are right about his Resurrection" requires strong evidence, let alone proof. But what you view as strong evidence is actually flimsy.
If we don't even know who wrote the Gospels, but we know they weren't written by the disciples, merely handed down to the authors by word of mouth, then we can safely say they're not based on first-hand eye witness testimony.
Something which all historians, by dint of their profession, would have a problem with.

The upshot of all this, is that to be a religious believer in Christianity requires faith at a level usurping reason and logic.


The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 09/09/21 9:01am

RichardS

What's wrong with faith?

I've never been religious, despite (or perhaps because of) being dragged to church regularly as a child but I don't see faith as anything wrong.

I fail to understand the OP's exuberance. About what? Is it some sort of misplaced superiority complex?

Let's face it being an atheist doesn't mean anyone is a better person than anyone else.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 09/09/21 9:39am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

RichardS said:

What's wrong with faith?

I've never been religious, despite (or perhaps because of) being dragged to church regularly as a child but I don't see faith as anything wrong.

I fail to understand the OP's exuberance. About what? Is it some sort of misplaced superiority complex?

Let's face it being an atheist doesn't mean anyone is a better person than anyone else.


Not that much as it happens. But there are more zealous types like Ian who wear their halos with jealousy neutral . So many of his posts are outright oppositional to anyone who disagrees with him, which turns every thread into a 'contest' not a 'conversation'.

Where I might agree with him (and maybe yourself) is in the belief that religious people tend to be nicer than the average atheist, on a human to human level. And there are also the major wars of the 20th century, which seem to have been caused exclusively by atheists. Even so, there is considerable degree of hypocrisy within religion that needs to be called out if we want a better world.





The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 09/09/21 1:38pm

IanRG

As I said, nothing but a bait and troll thread.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 09/09/21 5:03pm

fortuneandsere
ndipity

^ But trolling would mean not making any serious points. When in fact there are plenty.

And I live in a Christian country, within which all citizens live under the same head of state, a protestant monarch. To that degree, we are English speaking, UK citizens, members of the commonwealth and members of the anglican church. Which is why I put "as Christians" in square brackets [....]



The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 09/09/21 5:37pm

IanRG

fortuneandserendipity said:

^ But trolling would mean not making any serious points. When in fact there are plenty.

And I live in a Christian country, within which all citizens live under the same head of state, a protestant monarch. To that degree, we are English speaking, UK citizens, members of the commonwealth and members of the anglican church. Which is why I put "as Christians" in square brackets [....]



.

You are not a Christian and not required to be one just because the Queen says so.

.

This is just a bait and troll thread that you are using to attack Christians for your pleasure. Your posts after the OP do not show you have any interest in discussing Mark - not even with toejam other than to pretend he converted you to atheism.

[Edited 9/9/21 17:38pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 09/09/21 5:44pm

luv4u

Moderator

avatar

moderator

lock troll bait

Edmonton, AB - canada
Mod Goddess of the SNIP & BAN Making Moves - OF4S
Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture!
REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince
"I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > How can we [as Christians] defend The Gospel of Mark?!