Facing the Morally Bad Future

[FallentoReason]

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.

But they are actually not a part of what Mark was 'teaching'. It's heretical.

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.

And what sources are you using as the basis for what 'history' is? I have shown how Mark used the OT and Josephus for his Gospel. There is no historical Jesus being mentioned.

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.

I didn't say Mark was Josephus. I meant Mark is comprised of Josephus' work.

Josephus knew quite a few people named 'Jesus':

1. Jesus, son of Phabet - priest
2. Jesus, son of Ananus - prophesied the destruction of the temple.
3. Jesus, or Jason
4. Jesus, son of Sapphias, governor of Tiberias
5. Jesus, brother of Onias - priest
6. Jesus, son of Gamaliel - priest
7. Jesus, eldest priest after Ananus - priest
8. Jesus, son of Damneus - priest
9. Jesus, son of Gamala (Josephus’ friend)
10. Jesus, [or Joshua] son of Nun
11. Jesus, son of Saphet - ringleader of robbers
12. Jesus, son of Thebuthus - priest
13. Jesus, son of Josedek
14. Jesus of Galilee & his 600 followers
15. Jesus, the Christ (dubious reference)


The website gives an explanation of why the one that appears to be the Messiah can't be.

http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/JOEGOS2.htm


Josephus' work that I mentioned before could actually have been written before Mark. Josephus' work was written mid 60s.

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.

The tragic thing is that these two examples I gave aren't even prophecies. Nowhere in the OT does it say ''the Messiah will say 'my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?''' Nor does it say 'the Messiah will walk up to a fig tree'. It's just a trivial part of Jesus' life and it was taken directly from the OT. I know that you know these examples weren't prophecies that got fulfilled

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.

And as I have explained they held up to the OT for reasons that aren't convenient to any Christian. Like I showed you, trivial parts of the life of Jesus (which you wrongly identified as prophecy fulfilled) have been taken directly from the OT. Yes, the Gospels line up with the OT but, no, not because Jesus was on earth.

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.

Pretty sure the pharisees looked up to Josephus, as described in his biography:

Moreover, when I was a child, about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had for learning; on which account the high priests and principle men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law.


And a lightbulb should also have turned on right after reading that. This is strikingly similar to what's in Luke:

Luke 2:41-47
Now every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover. {42} And when he was twelve years old, they went up as usual for the festival... When they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem to search for him. {46} After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. {47} And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.


http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/JOEGOS2.htm

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.

Ok fair enough but given all that we have talked about I still see no reason to think we're reading literally about a person's life by the name of 'Jesus'.