Facing the Morally Bad Future

[Godscreated]

We do not know that the original writing did not include the resurrection, it may have, it would be nice to have the originals and a lot of argument would be put to rest, we don't so on we go.

What I tell you is an established fact. Pick up your typical Bible and in brackets it will say 'verses 9-20 are not found in earlier manuscripts'. It is a clear addition that couldn't have been in the originals, irrelevant of whether we have the originals or not. On we definitely don't go.

I know this it's in every Bible I own. I'm referring to the original in Marks own hand writing. These verses are considered to be acceptable to Christians because they are not in conflict with ant scripture, we know these are an addition and except them as worthy to be used in teaching.

Wait, what! In the statement above you said Mark did not know what the OT said about Christ, then at the end you say Mark based his work on the OT, I'm confused here? Please explain.

I believe Mark isn't talking about a human Messiah but merely used the OT and the character of Jesus to reiterate what the OT says. Does that make sense?

No, not in the light of history.

You say Mark wrote about a spiritual Christ, so let's see what history and Marks writings have to say. Josephus wrote about John the Baptist being a real person, Mark wrote about John the Baptist baptizing Jesus, so does it not follow that Mark was writing about a flesh and blood Christ. This is just from chapter one.

It does not because Mark describes Josephus' work allegorically i.e. he used that as a basis for his work. I don't know if I told you this already or someone else, but I believe that Mark is Josephus' work + an allegorical understanding of the OT mixed together to produce allegorical references about the times of the Jews as described by Josephus.

No way Josephus is mark, Josephus shows no evidence of believing in Christ. The only references Josephus makes about Christ are two short statements on that He was killed by Pilot and the other about Jesus being the brother of James, this later statement is accepted as written by Josephus. The mention of John the Baptist is also considered to be authentic. Josephus was born after Christ's death and resurrection, and the book Mark wrote would have been written before the history Josephus wrote.

The reason the Gospels line up with the OT is this, the Gospels were written about the life of Christ and in that the many prophecies of Christ were revealed, remember the Jews did not believe that most of the prophecies we know today related to Christ. It was not until after Christ came and fulfilled them that people realized all these prophecies were about Christ.

I have shown time and time again that the life of Christ has been taken from the OT. Like the part about the fig tree + driving the people out of the temple being an allegory to Hosea 9 and what Christ said on the cross being the exact words of Psalm 22:1.

Of course they line up, that's what prophecies are about, foretelling the future.

I'm not talking about Greek philosophers, I'm speaking of the ones who were originally chosen to put together the Bible, and they were not Greek philosophers.

I don't see how the people that compiled the NT are relevant. The authors of the books of the NT are more important than the compilers because they determine what Christianity is really about, not the compilers.

The ones that compiled the NT accepted or rejected the books that were written, the books we have are of coarse the accepted ones, the others were rejected because they did not hold up to the OT and other requirements. Many books were considered and rejected, the Holy Spirit guided these men in their decision. The reason the writers that are included in the NT are because they held up to testing, thus making them valid.

I think I addressed the history of Josephus and Marks writings well enough to establish that Mark was writing about a physical Christ.

The only conclusion we can draw from a comparison between Josephus and Mark is that Mark used, no actually, referenced Josephus allegorically.

Josephus did not write about Christ other than brief statements in Antiquities. As I said Mark wrote before Josephus, Josephus associated himself with the Pharisees only for convince, and this would have limited what he said about Christ, he did not want to blow the privileges he had.

Luke states that he got his information from different people and Marks writings could have been used as reference. Luke's book was a letter to a friend, to help the friend to confirm what he was hearing about Christ. Yes Matthew's book and Mark's book have similarities and why not they were both with Christ, Luke wrote to a friend and John wrote the story of love, Christ encompassed so much that these different ways of writing about Christ were needed to tell His story. Christ's ministry lasted three short years, and He changed the world forever, how is it you can not see who He really is.

There weren't 'different viewpoints' about Christ. Mark wrote an allegory which Matthew and Luke took and made it their own, with silly mistakes and supernatural content that Mark never mentions.

I never mentioned different viewpoints, different viewpoints would mean different Christ's. They wrote about the same physical Christ, telling the enormity of His life.