Facing the Morally Bad Future

[FallentoReason]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Epimethean]

Did they write about the same "physical" christ? How can you be so certain?

[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'.

[Godscreated]

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.

Who says it's heretical, I know of no one in the Christian community that has a problem with them.

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.

Josephus stated that Jesus was killed by Pilot, how do you crucify a allegory. Josephus was speaking of a real persons in Pilot and Jesus. This statement by Josephus is accepted as one written by him. He also said Jesus was the brother of Jude (do I have the correct name). So how does an allegory need a brother, especially when you refer to a spiritual Christ, this would mean God had more than one Son.

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.

Sorry, misread.

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.

Everyone knew of several Jesus, what does that have to do with anything, and as you have shown they were referred by names other than the Christ. Do not have time to read the link but will.
Josephus had to accomplished a great deal in a short time. He was born in 37AD, had to grow up, start and finish a military career and then write history all in less than 30 years, seems a stretch to me.

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

Did you read the entire Psalm, you should and carefully, even if you do not think it's a prophecy and the Jews did not we know that, they would have never believed in a suffering Messiah, who is the Psalm about?
Hosea 9 is about God scattering the nation of Israel punishment for turning away from Him, the One who made them a nation. I really can not see how you got anything about Christ from it.

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.

There are many prophecies about Jesus in the OT, Hosea 9 is not one of them, How is it you say I identified specific prophecy, I never gave any specific prophecies. What I did say was that the Apostles used these OT prophecies to preach about Jesus. I have a question for you, why would the Jews ever claim that Jesus was the Messiah, that is the One written about in the NT, this Messiah would have been a failure according to the Jewish belief, the Messiah would not be in conflict with the priest and other religious leaders according to their belief.

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.

Any proof of this other than what the man said about himself, you can not use the man's own writings to prove who he is. I think they saw him as a traitor, he sold out his own people to get into the graces of the Romans.

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

For Mark to have compared Christ to Josephus would be an insult to even a lesser god.

[Epimethean]

http://historyhuntersinternational.org/2...dangerous/

This, of course, does not mean that Mark isn't contrived, either.

[FallentoReason]

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

Who says it's heretical, I know of no one in the Christian community that has a problem with them.

The Christian community of today is not who I'm referring to. I'm referring to the fathers of Christianity; they would have said it's heretical. I don't know if you're subconsciously dodging the bullet here, but I'll make myself clear again: we are essentially discussing the meaning of the Gospels from the perspective of the authors which means that saying 'no Christian would agree with that today' holds absolutely no weight. My whole point in this discussion is that we, believer and non-believer alike, do not know the true meaning of these manuscripts.

Josephus stated that Jesus was killed by Pilot, how do you crucify a allegory. Josephus was speaking of a real persons in Pilot and Jesus. This statement by Josephus is accepted as one written by him. He also said Jesus was the brother of Jude (do I have the correct name). So how does an allegory need a brother, especially when you refer to a spiritual Christ, this would mean God had more than one Son.

You're referencing the bit that Eusebius added on. Nothing to be seen here.

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.

Everyone knew of several Jesus, what does that have to do with anything, and as you have shown they were referred by names other than the Christ. Do not have time to read the link but will.

The link explains why this matters.

Josephus had to accomplished a great deal in a short time. He was born in 37AD, had to grow up, start and finish a military career and then write history all in less than 30 years, seems a stretch to me.

Yet it happened. It's history.

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

Did you read the entire Psalm, you should and carefully, even if you do not think it's a prophecy and the Jews did not we know that, they would have never believed in a suffering Messiah, who is the Psalm about?

I gather it is about a Jew who is 'suffering'. This is rather reassuring of my view because Mark never claims that Jesus was divine. He suffered, died and stayed dead seeing as though it ends at 16:8. Therefore this parallel with Psalms is actually in my favour.

Hosea 9 is about God scattering the nation of Israel punishment for turning away from Him, the One who made them a nation. I really can not see how you got anything about Christ from it.

You're looking at it in the wrong direction. I didn't go from NT to OT and ask 'how does this parallel relate to Christ'? I've realised that the OT gave the NT authors the material that would become the fictional character of Jesus. Christ is an allegory.

There are many prophecies about Jesus in the OT, Hosea 9 is not one of them, How is it you say I identified specific prophecy, I never gave any specific prophecies. What I did say was that the Apostles used these OT prophecies to preach about Jesus. I have a question for you, why would the Jews ever claim that Jesus was the Messiah, that is the One written about in the NT, this Messiah would have been a failure according to the Jewish belief, the Messiah would not be in conflict with the priest and other religious leaders according to their belief.

I'm actually not too sure. I think this is a question for an observant Jew.

What I do know is that it's perfectly fine to call Jesus the Messiah if all he is is an allegory. There was a different purpose to Mark than record the apparent history of a failed Messiah, which according to you is unacceptable.

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.

Any proof of this other than what the man said about himself, you can not use the man's own writings to prove who he is. I think they saw him as a traitor, he sold out his own people to get into the graces of the Romans.

Given all the parallels between Josephus' life and Mark, I'm very tempted to say the proof is overwhelming.

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

For Mark to have compared Christ to Josephus would be an insult to even a lesser god.

Or maybe Christ wasn't real but an allegory.

[Godscreated]

we are essentially discussing the meaning of the Gospels from the perspective of the authors which means that saying 'no Christian would agree with that today' holds absolutely no weight. My whole point in this discussion is that we, believer and non-believer alike, do not know the true meaning of these manuscripts.

The believer who searches the Gospels are shown the truth about them by the Holy Spirit. What makes you believe that the Gospels are not understandable, and if you can not understand them then how is it you can say they are allegory?

Josephus stated that Jesus was killed by Pilot, how do you crucify a allegory. Josephus was speaking of a real persons in Pilot and Jesus. This statement by Josephus is accepted as one written by him. He also said Jesus was the brother of Jude (do I have the correct name). So how does an allegory need a brother, especially when you refer to a spiritual Christ, this would mean God had more than one Son.

You're referencing the bit that Eusebius added on. Nothing to be seen here.

No I'm referencing what most believe to be penned by Josephus.

Did you read the entire Psalm, you should and carefully, even if you do not think it's a prophecy and the Jews did not we know that, they would have never believed in a suffering Messiah, who is the Psalm about?

I gather it is about a Jew who is 'suffering'. This is rather reassuring of my view because Mark never claims that Jesus was divine. He suffered, died and stayed dead seeing as though it ends at 16:8. Therefore this parallel with Psalms is actually in my favour.

You speak as if Mark's gospel is the only one written or matters, what's up with that? Mark did speak of Jesus as Christ, thus His divinity. Now a suffering Jew, why, why would there be a Psalm about some suffering Jew, that makes no sense, you're grabbing at straws, straws that do not exist. This Psalm is not in your favor, it works completely against you, you can not explain it's purpose.

Hosea 9 is about God scattering the nation of Israel, punishment for turning away from Him, the One who made them a nation. I really can not see how you got anything about Christ from it.

You're looking at it in the wrong direction. I didn't go from NT to OT and ask 'how does this parallel relate to Christ'? I've realised that the OT gave the NT authors the material that would become the fictional character of Jesus. Christ is an allegory.

The 9th chapter of Hosea has nothing to do with Christ period, there's no way you can get anything from it to relate to Christ allegorically or other wise. Did you read this chapter, if so please show me how it relates to Christ.

There are many prophecies about Jesus in the OT, Hosea 9 is not one of them, How is it you say I identified specific prophecy, I never gave any specific prophecies. What I did say was that the Apostles used these OT prophecies to preach about Jesus. I have a question for you, why would the Jews ever claim that Jesus was the Messiah, that is the One written about in the NT, this Messiah would have been a failure according to the Jewish belief, the Messiah would not be in conflict with the priest and other religious leaders according to their belief.

I'm actually not too sure. I think this is a question for an observant Jew.

What I do know is that it's perfectly fine to call Jesus the Messiah if all he is is an allegory. There was a different purpose to Mark than record the apparent history of a failed Messiah, which according to you is unacceptable.

You need to find out and it's actually a question that an unbeliever should answer, there's no way a self respecting Jew is going to write about the Messiah as the NT portrays Him, unless he knows the truth of Christ as a real person. No one would open themselves up to the kind of ridicule and pressures the Apostles did unless they knew that Jesus was a real person.

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.

Any proof of this other than what the man said about himself, you can not use the man's own writings to prove who he is. I think they saw him as a traitor, he sold out his own people to get into the graces of the Romans.

Given all the parallels between Josephus' life and Mark, I'm very tempted to say the proof is overwhelming.

What parallels, give some examples, please.

For Mark to have compared Christ to Josephus would be an insult to even a lesser god.

Or maybe Christ wasn't real but an allegory.

Even if Mark and the others wrote about Christ as an allegory, would they not have put Him in the best possible light. To do other wise would be to undermine their own desires to have a great Messiah, agree or disagree and why?

[FallentoReason]

we are essentially discussing the meaning of the Gospels from the perspective of the authors which means that saying 'no Christian would agree with that today' holds absolutely no weight. My whole point in this discussion is that we, believer and non-believer alike, do not know the true meaning of these manuscripts.

The believer who searches the Gospels are shown the truth about them by the Holy Spirit. What makes you believe that the Gospels are not understandable, and if you can not understand them then how is it you can say they are allegory?

The trinity isn't an original teaching. Saying the 'Holy Spirit' fixes everything also holds no weight in determining what the Gospels are.

We can make an attempt to understand them if we set aside all preconcieved ideas and look at the raw facts.

You're referencing the bit that Eusebius added on. Nothing to be seen here.

No I'm referencing what most believe to be penned by Josephus.

Wrong. You're referencing the very same paragraph where Josephus the observant Jew confesses Jesus is the Messiah. It's all Eusebius.

You speak as if Mark's gospel is the only one written or matters, what's up with that? Mark did speak of Jesus as Christ, thus His divinity. Now a suffering Jew, why, why would there be a Psalm about some suffering Jew, that makes no sense, you're grabbing at straws, straws that do not exist. This Psalm is not in your favor, it works completely against you, you can not explain it's purpose.

Mark was the first one written. Matthew copied it and added supernatural content and also mucked up the parallels that Mark had like the fig tree. Luke confesses he used other sources which were most likely Mark and Josephus' work. John is simply an outlier and it shows just how far the divinity of Jesus evolved through the years.

Explain the Psalm then. Until then, I read about a Jew who is suffering.

The 9th chapter of Hosea has nothing to do with Christ period, there's no way you can get anything from it to relate to Christ allegorically or other wise. Did you read this chapter, if so please show me how it relates to Christ.

I have shown you the parallels between Christ walking up to the fig tree and Hosea 9. There is no physical Christ or Messiah to be talked about meaning the answer you're looking for doesn't exist.... Jesus is simply an allegory that embodies the past stories of the Jews and Greek thought (which involves Paganism, hence e.g. 12 zodiac signs = 12 Apostles).

You need to find out and it's actually a question that an unbeliever should answer, there's no way a self respecting Jew is going to write about the Messiah as the NT portrays Him, unless he knows the truth of Christ as a real person.

OR if he was writing allegorically. But I know this is a possibility you won't even consider.

No one would open themselves up to the kind of ridicule and pressures the Apostles did unless they knew that Jesus was a real person.

As far as evidence goes, the Apostles never existed except for up in the stars, as zodiac signs.

Given all the parallels between Josephus' life and Mark, I'm very tempted to say the proof is overwhelming.

What parallels, give some examples, please.

Alrighty then...

---

JOHN THE BAPTIST
---ONE---
Mark 1:4-6
John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. {5} And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. {6} Now John was clothed with camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.

Life 2
But when I was informed that one whose name was Bannus, lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than grew on trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both night and day, in order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those things, and continued with him three years.

---TWO---
Mark 6:17,18,27,29
For Herod himself had sent men who arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because Herod had married her. {18} For John had been telling Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife."...
{27} Immediately the king sent a soldier of the guard with orders to bring John's head. He went and beheaded him in the prison, {28} brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl. Then the girl gave it to her mother. {29} When his disciples heard about it, they came and took his body, and laid it in a tomb.

Ant. 18:5:2
Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so come for baptism; for that the washing (with water) would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the remission of some sins (only), but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when many others came to crowd about him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause,... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.

THE CRUCIFIXION
---ONE---
Mark 15:42-46
When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, {43} Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. {44} Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. {45} When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. {46} Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.

Life 75
as I [Joseph Bar Mathias] came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.

---

There's a start, as well as the one about Josephus and Jesus being child prodigies.

Stepping back from Mark and looking at the Gospels as a whole one realises the gravity of these parallels. If you're interested:

---

http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/JOEGOS2.htm
http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/JOEGOS3.htm
http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/JOEGOS4.htm
http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/JOEGOS5.htm

---

Even if Mark and the others wrote about Christ as an allegory, would they not have put Him in the best possible light. To do other wise would be to undermine their own desires to have a great Messiah, agree or disagree and why?

I agree completely if we're thinking like Christians. I have to actually disagree though because my belief is that the intention of Christ wasn't about what gets preached today in its entirety. Christ symbolises the Jews' past AND Greek thought/mythology. Christ being an allegory wasn't ever going to be this perfect Messiah because that's not what it's about. There are perfect explanations for all the events which are tied to reality but not in the way that a conventional Christian would think.