Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
show that Paul's teachings are found in Mark as Jesus saying them, but Paul never attributes them to Jesus.
I have continued my research into the Gospel that fascinates me the most; Mark. In this post, I want to show that the author of Mark was actually familiar with the Pauline epistles. The repercussions of these particular examples I will share are as follows:
Jesus seems to be quoting Paul (an impossibility).
From the first point, it follows that Paul (again) knew of no human Christ.
Mark most likely believed Jesus was a spirit like Paul did (as these parallels suggest Mark followed closely the teachings of Paul).
Mark was definitely not recording genuine history as these allegories/parallels leave no room for such thing.
The thing to note with these three examples is that Paul never attributes these teachings as being from Christ. Instead, it seems like Paul genuinely came up with them himself and Mark later put them in Jesus' mouth. Let's get straight into it.
WORKS OF THE FLESH
Galatians 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Mark 7:21
For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, 22 adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.'
MIRACULOUS SIGNS
1 Corinthians 1:22
Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles
Mark 8:12
And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, 'Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.'
GIVING BACK THE OWNER WHAT IS HIS
Romans 13:7
Pay to all what is due to them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
Mark 12:17
Jesus said to them, 'Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's.' And they were utterly amazed at him.
These are just 3 examples of rather explicit copy + paste that went on, with none of these being attributed to Jesus by Paul. Instead, it seems like it went the opposite way with Mark grabbing Paul's teachings and using them as he pleased.
Here is an example that is rather more intricate. The interesting thing with this one is that it's actually an impossibility for Jesus to be saying this in the first place! I'll explain why.
Romans 8:5,15
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit set their minds on the things of the spirit.
...
For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, 'Abba! Father!'
Mark 14:36-41
He said, 'Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.' 37 He came and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, 'Simon, are you asleep? Could you not keep awake one hour? 38 Keep awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.' 39 And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And once more he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to say to him. 41 He came a third time and said to them, 'Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Enough!
It seems like Mark has fabricated a scene which depicts the teaching of Paul. Here we see that the Apostles are struggling with the 'things of the flesh' while Jesus leads by example and is living by the 'things of the spirit'. What is actually impossible in this scenario for Jesus is him saying the expression 'Abba, Father'. 'Abba' is the Aramaic word for Father, where Father has been written in Greek, which Jesus did not speak. The reason why Paul says 'Abba, Father' is because he has a habit of first using the Jewish exclamation and then translating that for his audience in Greek. Therefore, it seems like this can't be genuine history, but rather another case of Mark grabbing what's already there and using to construct the life of Jesus.
*BONUS CONTENT*
I want to reinforce the idea that Paul didn't know of any historical Christ by challenging the best case for an historical Jesus (within Paul's epistles).
1 Corinthians 2:7-9
But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written,
"What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"
On the surface it seems like Paul is talking about an earthly Christ that was crucified, but if we read on, he makes it perfectly clear that's not the case:
[10]these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. //so Jesus revealed nothing himself while on earth?
[11]...so also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. //Surely Jesus could comprehend those thoughts. Otherwise what rubbish was Jesus preaching?!
[13]and we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit. //Didn't Jesus come to earth to teach as a human?
It seems like Paul was referring to the rulers of the lower heavens who crucified Jesus, which really lines up very well with what we know about the historicity of Jesus--non existent.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Oh, woops... disregard the first line. I went to make myself a coffee before writing the post, so I wrote what it was that I wanted to write about when I got back. Clearly I forgot to remove that before posting...
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
September 6, 2012 at 1:10 am (This post was last modified: September 6, 2012 at 1:20 am by Undeceived.)
(September 5, 2012 at 10:33 am)FallentoReason Wrote: [*]Jesus seems to be quoting Paul (an impossibility).
It's impossible to prove Jesus' words followed Paul's. It's also unlikely, given you'd have to eliminate all possibilities but one--that the Gospels are 100% fabricated lies. Perhaps Paul read the Gospel of Mark. After all, the churches to whom Paul wrote had to base their faith on someone or something. Every religion needs a physical catalyst--either a miraculous sign or conquered enemies. Rumors don't make people change their lives.
(September 5, 2012 at 10:33 am)FallentoReason Wrote: [*]From the first point, it follows that Paul (again) knew of no human Christ.
Quote:Paul believes that Christ was and still is a human being, which would not be at all contested by Paul's Jewish contemporaries. To express the idea of Jesus Christ as a human being, Paul uses various anthropological terms in his description of him and his salvation-historical work. In Rom 5:15 and 1 Cor 15:21, he refers to Jesus Christ as a man (anthrôpos), in comparison and contrast to the first man, Adam. (Paul qualifies this by saying that Jesus Christ is the "man from heaven" as opposed to the "man from earth" [1 Cor 15:47-48].) Similarly, in 1 Tim 2:5, Paul calls Jesus a man (anthrôpos), the mediator between God and human beings.
Paul also uses the term "flesh" (sarx) to describe Jesus' humanity; the term refers to physical or bodily existence. Paul writes about how God sent his own son "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (en homoiômati sarkos hamartias) by which he means that Christ appeared in history as a human being, under the constraints imposed upon the human race by sin (Rom 8:3). Paul does not uses the phrase "in the likeness of" in order communicate that Christ only appeared to be flesh, in which case likeness would mean something like resemblance. Rather Paul's intention is using "in the likeness of sinful flesh rather than simply "in sinful flesh" is to imply that Christ was not only sinful flesh but was something else that was sent by God in order to take on sinful flesh, or fallen physical existence (Phil 2:7 "in the likeness of human beings"). In other words, it would be an error to conclude that, because he appeared to be a human, Christ was only a human being. Another possible interpretation is to take homoiôma (likeness) to mean form or nature without any suggestion that Christ merely appeared to be a human being. Likewise in 1 Tim 3:16, he quotes from a hymn whose first line is "He appeared in flesh" (ephanerothê en sarki), by which is meant that Christ appeared as a human being, with a physical body. Finally, in Eph 2:14-15, Paul speaks of Christ's "abolishing in his flesh (sarki)" the enmity between Jew and gentile; he is referring to Christ's soteriological work as a human being, or as having "flesh." Paul also refers to Jesus' body (sôma) in Rom 7:4 ("through the body of Christ"), by which he means Christ's physical existence, and in Col 1:21-22 he says that Christ reconciled "you" "by the body of his flesh" (en to sômati tês sarkos autou); the difficult phrase refers to Christ's body as composed of flesh, or his physical body. Paul also gives to God the salvation-historical designation of "the one who raised Jesus from the dead" (Rom 8:11; see 1 Cor 15:15 "He [God] raised Christ). This uniquely Christian title implies that Jesus had a human body.
Paul affirms that Jesus Christ as a human being was a Jew. In Rom 1:3, he writes that, "according to the flesh (kata sarka), i.e. with respect to his physical descent, Jesus Christ was from the "seed of David," by which he means that he was a descendent of David. Likewise in 2 Tim 2:8, Jesus Christ is described as "from the seed of David." In Rom 9:5 he says that he, according to the flesh (kata sarka), was from the Israelites: "Israelites...from whom is the Christ according to the flesh." In Gal 4:4, Paul says that "God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law," which implies that he was not only a human being but also a Jew. Finally, Paul makes reference to “James, the brother of the Lord”; to have James as a brother implies that Jesus Christ is both a human being and a Jew, since James was a Jew (Gal 1:19).
It should be noted, however, that Paul holds that Jesus Christ as a human being did not "know" sin in the sense that he did not experience sin and so was sinless: "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf" (2 Cor 5:21).(1) (The Suffering Servant was sinless [Isa 53:9], and it was sometimes affirmed in Second-Temple texts that the Messiah would be without sin [Pss Sol. 17:40-41; T. Jud. 24:1; T. Levi 18:9].) He is also described as righteous and obedient to God: "Through one act of righteousness...through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous" Rom 5:18-19). His sinlessness and righteousness set him apart from the rest of humanity. (Jesus Christ is also said to have humility, unlike most other human beings [Phil 2:6-11].)
(September 5, 2012 at 10:33 am)FallentoReason Wrote: [*]Mark most likely believed Jesus was a spirit like Paul did (as these parallels suggest Mark followed closely the teachings of Paul).
Your premises are in doubt, and it's quite clear Mark intended his audience to see Jesus as a human being. Why should he lie?
(September 5, 2012 at 10:33 am)FallentoReason Wrote: [*]Mark was definitely not recording genuine history as these allegories/parallels leave no room for such thing.
Or Jesus really did say those things and fulfilled prophecies. Your conclusion relies on the assumption that Jesus is not God. It seems all you have are similarities between Paul's epistles, the Gospels and the Old Testament. I agree there are similarities. My interpretation of their concord, however, is divine inspiration--in which case there are expected fulfillments. Do you have any evidence unable to be attributed to divine inspiration?
September 6, 2012 at 1:38 am (This post was last modified: September 6, 2012 at 1:40 am by FallentoReason.)
Undeceived Wrote:It's impossible to prove Jesus' words followed Paul's.
Why doesn't Paul attribute these 3 examples to Jesus?
Quote: It's also unlikely, given you'd have to eliminate all possibilities but one--that the Gospels are 100% fabricated lies.
No one back then lied. It's your modern interpretation of what your own religion says that is a lie. How is Mark intentionally using the OT and epistles mean that he's a liar? All it means is that you don't know his intentions, but to outright lie isn't one of them.
Quote: Perhaps Paul read the Gospel of Mark.
Even though Mark was written after all of Paul's genuine epistles? Miraculous...
Quote:After all, the churches to whom Paul wrote had to base their faith on someone or something. Every religion needs a physical catalyst--either a miraculous sign or conquered enemies. Rumors don't make people change their lives.
Again, there's no 'rumours' or 'lies' here. Besides, every other cult of the time didn't need a human catalyst to function. Christianity is no different.
Thanks for this link. I've had a quick scan of it and there's a lot of good stuff in there. If this is your main 'argument' for a physical Christ, then I'll make sure to refute this website when I get the time.
Quote:Your premises are in doubt, and it's quite clear Mark intended his audience to see Jesus as a human being. Why should he lie?
Your arguments were faulty in my opinion, which means my premises are intact. Where's your evidence that Mark intended us to see Christ as being human? My evidence shows that the very thing he wrote to supposedly prove an historical Christ (in your eyes) doesn't come from genuine history. Wriggle your way out of that one.
No one is lying here, just what the church tells you today.
Quote:Or Jesus really did say those things and fulfilled prophecies.
As I have shown, what Jesus said came from Paul's letters. As I have also shown many times, there's many parallels between trivial events in Jesus' life (not prophecies) and the OT, meaning that you can't call that 'prophecy fulfilled' because said events weren't prophecized to begin with. You have Mark to thank for for making Jesus' life out of the OT.
Quote: Your conclusion relies on the assumption that Jesus is not God.
Never once have I delved into that topic. First show me why Mark is writing true history before we can even speculate the nature of an 'earthly Jesus'.
Quote: It seems all you have are similarities between Paul's epistles, the Gospels and the Old Testament. I agree there are similarities. My interpretation of their concord, however, is divine inspiration--in which case there are expected fulfillments. Do you have any evidence unable to be attributed to divine inspiration?
Like I have said, never have I touched verses that are 'true fulfilments' of prophecy. I've only touched the ones that are trivial like Jesus walking up to a fig tree. That's not prophecy but it seems like it came from the OT. This can't be called 'divine inspiration' because there's nothing divine about this event of his life coming from a non-prophecy verse in the OT. That's called copy + paste.
You can believe that there's divine inspiration all you want. That comes under faith, but what I'm showing here is that there's elements of Jesus' life that aren't prophecy being fulfilled because it wasn't prophecized in the first place. Why would you call that divine inspiration?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
September 6, 2012 at 2:44 am (This post was last modified: September 6, 2012 at 2:49 am by Undeceived.)
(September 6, 2012 at 1:38 am)FallentoReason Wrote: No one back then lied. It's your modern interpretation of what your own religion says that is a lie.
If Mark writes that Jesus lived, preached, died and resurrected and Jesus didn't exist then Mark is a liar. If you think a realistic allegory (to the point of being mistaken for truth) is a common style in 1st century Israel, give me an example of another.
Quote:Even though Mark was written after all of Paul's genuine epistles? Miraculous...
Mark's earliest partial copy is dated after Paul's earliest partial copy. Both are dated before these copies. Most of Paul's epistles have a ceiling of 51-59AD while Mark's Gospel has a ceiling of 70AD. That does not mean Mark was written after. To put this in perspective, the earliest copies of the chronicles of Julius Caesar date to the 900s AD. Yet scholars have no problem alleging they were written during the man's lifetime. In short, date of earliest copy ≠ date written.
Quote:Besides, every other cult of the time didn't need a human catalyst to function.
You have information on other cults of the time? I'm interested. Which do you believe had no human catalyst? Did they get very far?
Quote:Where's your evidence that Mark intended us to see Christ as being human?
Of the Gospel writers, Mark writes most like the Roman chronicling style. Give me an example of a Jewish 1st century allegory close to this style. Show me people wrote fiction that looked like fact, even going to the extent of 'fulfilling' Jewish prophecies. Then explain why the author would put himself in danger in mocking Judaism and how he could not possibly consider one Jew would take his work seriously.
Quote:As I have shown, what Jesus said came from Paul's letters.
You showed a similarity in theme. Every book has concepts that come up now and again, developed a little differently each time. If what Jesus said is important, you can bet it will be introduced in the OT and elaborated in Paul's following commentaries. Your three examples are universal truths. The fact Paul writes of them is a testament to what they are.
Quote:Why doesn't Paul attribute these 3 examples to Jesus?
I don't believe they are quotes to begin with. They are truths. Paul has read and heard a lot about Jesus so it's only natural their material should be fall in line.
Quote:That comes under faith, but what I'm showing here is that there's elements of Jesus' life that aren't prophecy being fulfilled because it wasn't prophecized in the first place. Why would you call that divine inspiration?
Divine inspiration carries out God's plan for his message to mankind, how He wants the Bible to turn out. It does not need a prophecy. We were talking about similarities, not prophecies. I'm not convinced the fig tree similarity was anything more than incidental, but other similarities might have a purpose and are divinely inspired to make sure their point gets across. One such similarity is Satan being compared to a serpent.
Undeceived Wrote:If Mark writes that Jesus lived, preached, died and resurrected and Jesus didn't exist then Mark is a liar.
Mark has no resurrection accounts. Verses 9-20 aren't original!!!!!
Yes, Mark wrote certain things about his 'life', which he got from other sources. How is it a lie? I can see what he did and apparently so can you, but why do you label him as a liar? Did you know his intentions for doing this or something? If he wanted to deceive then maybe we can call him a liar because acts of deceit usually rely on lies.
Quote:If you think a realistic allegory (to the point of being mistaken for truth) is a common style in 1st century Israel, give me an example of another.
What makes you think Mark was from Israel? The fact that he uses the epistles suggests he was Greek. This makes perfect sense, given the mind of the typical Hellenized Jew.
Philo Judaeus of Alexandria is a great example of the Jewish Greek mind at work. He wrote works which interpret Genesis as allegory:
Philo, Allegorical Interpretation I Wrote:
I. (1) "And the heaven and the earth and all their world was Completed."{1}{#ge 2:1.} Having previously related the creation of the mind and of sense, Moses now proceeds to describe the perfection which was brought about by them both. And he says that neither the indivisible mind nor the particular sensations received perfection, but only ideas, one the idea of the mind, the other of sensation. And, speaking symbolically, he calls the mind heaven, since the natures which can only be comprehended by the intellect are in heaven. And sensation he calls earth, because it is sensation which has obtained a corporeal and some what earthy constitution. The ornaments of the mind are all the incorporeal things, which are perceptible only by the intellect. Those of sensation are the corporeal things, and everything in short which is perceptible by the external senses.
Now, were his thoughts mistaken for truth? Well, yes! His theological contribution foreshadows the nature of Christ himself. This I will not debate on here because it's a different topic altogether.
Quote:Mark's earliest partial copy is dated after Paul's earliest partial copy. Both are dated before these copies. Most of Paul's epistles have a ceiling of 51-59AD while Mark's Gospel has a ceiling of 70AD. That does not mean Mark was written after. To put this in perspective, the earliest copies of the chronicles of Julius Caesar date to the 900s AD. Yet scholars have no problem alleging they were written during the man's lifetime. In short, date of earliest copy ≠ date written.
I don't have the slightest clue where you're getting your information from. That is definitely NOT how the dates have come to be because the earliest New Testament fragment is of John at the moment:
Quote:Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars.
I will continue to go by scholarship on the dates of the NT documents, which says Paul's epistles came before any of the Gospels.
As for Caesar, some of these copies were originally written by contemporary authors, which undoubtedly means the copies were from Caesar's time.
Quote:You have information on other cults of the time? I'm interested. Which do you believe had no human catalyst? Did they get very far?
Yes, I have some information, courtesy of modern archaeology. The ones I'm familiar with is Mithraism. They didn't get far, because like other mystery cults, they didn't write anything down. Their knowledge was available only to the members. Lucky for you, most Jews were Hellenistic, which meant they could apply these new 'philosophies' onto the already existing religion of Judaism. This pretty much meant half the work was already done and all that was done was spawn the other half i.e. NT. If it weren't for Alexander the Great spreading Greek culture everywhere then I doubt Christianity could have happened. Maybe we would only still have observant Jews.
Quote:Of the Gospel writers, Mark writes most like the Roman chronicling style. Give me an example of a Jewish 1st century allegory close to this style. Show me people wrote fiction that looked like fact, even going to the extent of 'fulfilling' Jewish prophecies. Then explain why the author would put himself in danger in mocking Judaism and how he could not possibly consider one Jew would take his work seriously.
Sorry, I'm not sure what the 'chronicling style' is. You might have to explain it to me.
I do not know of any other allegory that 'fulfills' Jewish prophecy. What I can tell you is that Mark didn't need to consider Jews not taking him seriously. Philo is proof of that i.e. it was ok to see the OT as anything but literal. That's the Greek mind for you, very philosophical.
Quote:You showed a similarity in theme. Every book has concepts that come up now and again, developed a little differently each time. If what Jesus said is important, you can bet it will be introduced in the OT and elaborated in Paul's following commentaries. Your three examples are universal truths. The fact Paul writes of them is a testament to what they are.
I showed 3 near-enough explicit examples. We're not talking here of both authors voicing the same idea independently. There's sufficient reason to see that Mark copied Paul.
Quote:I don't believe they are quotes to begin with. They are truths. Paul has read and heard a lot about Jesus so it's only natural their material should be fall in line.
Paul could not have read about Jesus because no Gospel was written yet! Neither did he hear about Jesus:
Galatians 1:12
For I did not receive it [the gospel] from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Paul wasn't aware of any of Jesus' teachings, but instead through the spirit got his information apparently. This is made clear because Paul doesn't give credit to Jesus in these examples!
Quote:Divine inspiration carries out God's plan for his message to mankind, how He wants the Bible to turn out. It does not need a prophecy. We were talking about similarities, not prophecies. I'm not convinced the fig tree similarity was anything more than incidental, but other similarities might have a purpose and are divinely inspired to make sure their point gets across. One such similarity is Satan being compared to a serpent.
You can believe it's divinely inspired all you want, but the evidence says otherwise.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
(September 5, 2012 at 10:33 am)FallentoReason Wrote: show that Paul's teachings are found in Mark as Jesus saying them, but Paul never attributes them to Jesus.
I have continued my research into the Gospel that fascinates me the most; Mark. In this post, I want to show that the author of Mark was actually familiar with the Pauline epistles. The repercussions of these particular examples I will share are as follows:
Jesus seems to be quoting Paul (an impossibility).
From the first point, it follows that Paul (again) knew of no human Christ.
Mark most likely believed Jesus was a spirit like Paul did (as these parallels suggest Mark followed closely the teachings of Paul).
Mark was definitely not recording genuine history as these allegories/parallels leave no room for such thing.
The thing to note with these three examples is that Paul never attributes these teachings as being from Christ. Instead, it seems like Paul genuinely came up with them himself and Mark later put them in Jesus' mouth. Let's get straight into it.
WORKS OF THE FLESH
Galatians 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Mark 7:21
For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, 22 adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.'
MIRACULOUS SIGNS
1 Corinthians 1:22
Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles
Mark 8:12
And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, 'Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.'
GIVING BACK THE OWNER WHAT IS HIS
Romans 13:7
Pay to all what is due to them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
Mark 12:17
Jesus said to them, 'Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's.' And they were utterly amazed at him.
These are just 3 examples of rather explicit copy + paste that went on, with none of these being attributed to Jesus by Paul. Instead, it seems like it went the opposite way with Mark grabbing Paul's teachings and using them as he pleased.
Here is an example that is rather more intricate. The interesting thing with this one is that it's actually an impossibility for Jesus to be saying this in the first place! I'll explain why.
Romans 8:5,15
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit set their minds on the things of the spirit.
...
For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, 'Abba! Father!'
Mark 14:36-41
He said, 'Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.' 37 He came and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, 'Simon, are you asleep? Could you not keep awake one hour? 38 Keep awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.' 39 And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And once more he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to say to him. 41 He came a third time and said to them, 'Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Enough!
It seems like Mark has fabricated a scene which depicts the teaching of Paul. Here we see that the Apostles are struggling with the 'things of the flesh' while Jesus leads by example and is living by the 'things of the spirit'. What is actually impossible in this scenario for Jesus is him saying the expression 'Abba, Father'. 'Abba' is the Aramaic word for Father, where Father has been written in Greek, which Jesus did not speak. The reason why Paul says 'Abba, Father' is because he has a habit of first using the Jewish exclamation and then translating that for his audience in Greek. Therefore, it seems like this can't be genuine history, but rather another case of Mark grabbing what's already there and using to construct the life of Jesus.
*BONUS CONTENT*
I want to reinforce the idea that Paul didn't know of any historical Christ by challenging the best case for an historical Jesus (within Paul's epistles).
1 Corinthians 2:7-9
But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written,
"What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"
On the surface it seems like Paul is talking about an earthly Christ that was crucified, but if we read on, he makes it perfectly clear that's not the case:
[10]these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. //so Jesus revealed nothing himself while on earth?
[11]...so also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. //Surely Jesus could comprehend those thoughts. Otherwise what rubbish was Jesus preaching?!
[13]and we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit. //Didn't Jesus come to earth to teach as a human?
It seems like Paul was referring to the rulers of the lower heavens who crucified Jesus, which really lines up very well with what we know about the historicity of Jesus--non existent.
Haven't I shown in the last 3 or 4 of these things that your research to be sub par and easily dismantled? How many times does your faith against the bible require you to try and destroy the gospel works? Why not simply say I do not want to believe in the bible like your peers and move on with your life? what is with trying to make this a legitmate persuit? why do you need a legitmate reason to move away from Christianity? Why not just go? that way when your life plays out and you wish to return you can. The path you have taken will leave you with no way to return home IF you should want to go.
September 9, 2012 at 9:31 pm (This post was last modified: September 9, 2012 at 9:32 pm by FallentoReason.)
Because Drich, I'm not going to be someone that states Christianity is false because, in a nutshell, ends don't meet. The matter of the fact is that we have these manuscripts that have been left behind which make certain claims. My aim is to go one further than just saying 'the Bible doesn't stand on its own two feet'. My aim is to demonstrate and explain why such claims have been made. I want to explain what they really believed and what actually happened that led to us having these manuscripts. I want for you to meet your maker.
Faith is for the foolish. Without evidence, I wouldn't have posted this.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
[quote='FallentoReason' pid='334488' dateline='1347240679']
[quote]Because Drich, I'm not going to be someone that states Christianity is false because, in a nutshell, ends don't meet. The matter of the fact is that we have these manuscripts that have been left behind which make certain claims. My aim is to go one further than just saying 'the Bible doesn't stand on its own two feet'. My aim is to demonstrate and explain why such claims have been made. I want to explain what they really believed and what actually happened that led to us having these manuscripts. I want for you to meet your maker. Faith is for the foolish. Without evidence, I wouldn't have posted this.[/quote]
But that's just it. YOU haven't done any of these things not even once. You copy and paste the flawed works of others and compile them together under your own titles. To which you make a superfical effort support them when properly challenged. However in the end you complations fail to hold up to serious scrutiny. Which is why I've asked what is the point?
You asked us why we continue to believe when the 'evidence' does not support our assertions? I'd like to now ask you the same question. No matter how you'd like to think you'd answer this question, the truth of the matter boils down to your own personal faith in what you believe. You have the same faith in what you believe, as the Christian has in what he believes. Which is what God judges. Your Faith, and where you place it.
So tell yourself what you like, but know deep down the reason you keep returning to this well, the reason you beat this dead horse is because you feel you need to justify your faith, the only way you know how. Which fails and will fail every single time. Why? Because you are basing your efforts in the works, and the faiths of the 'others' that have inspired those works. Meaning you are placing your faith in 'facts' that people have fudged to make thier justifications/beliefs work. You like them are building only one side of the equasion, and you do not put the effort into researching the other side. What truth can be fond in only looking for what you want to find? This is not a research for truth, this is the efforts for a justification of Faith.
