Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

[oldbadger]

The verses where Mark refers to the young man who escapes naked fit in well with Mark’s recurrent imagery of clothing as relating to one’s faith in Jesus.

Gosh, the complex stuff that folks think up to rubbish a straightforward report of all......

Mark 14:51-52
And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

A 'never to be forgotten' escape.

Why would anyone be outdoors wearing only a nightshirt?

I love the way that you manipulate 'linen cloth' into 'nightshirt' ....... in order to help your agenda of dismissal. If you had lived as a peasant in Palestine you might see lightweight clothing in springtime as usual.

@ Introducing John the Baptist
Mark 1:6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;

A man who lived out in the wastes, surviving as close to self subsistence as any man could, relying upon the sends of the seasons and the surges of the migrations.
................and you spin it into fable.

@ Mark 2:21 No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.

Common sense! A literal action as an example of common sense!
..............and you need to make it into myth!

@ Mark 5:1-20 is the incident of the man possessed by the legion of demons, After Jesus casts out those demons, the man puts on clothes.

No he did not! A total fabrication to support your agenda.
{5:15} And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.

................. so Jesus had (maybe) put a garment upon him, or wrapped him around with a sailcloth? And you take a simple description and spin it into rubbish? That's what Luke and Matthew did but for other reasons.

@ In Mark 5 Verse 33 But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.

Perfectly reasonable account. Go people watching sometime, and see how they are into 'touch' and 'clutch' and 'hold'.

Why was she fearing and trembling? One school of thought was that she touched not merely his garment but the tzitzit Jesus would wear as an observant Jew. Her blood issue made her ritually unclean and not allowed to touch a tzitzit. But her faith in Jesus overrode that prohibition. She took a chance and was rewarded for it.

Oh please! You've already described the Baptist dressed in animal skins and he was a devoted Jew! Jesus was a Galilean peasant of the second order and here we have you deciding how he dressed two millenia ago. He was dressed in what he could afford to obtain.

Jesus had joined with the Baptist in outright contention against Temple and priesthood corruption and had been obstructing the flow of funds to both by supporting redemption of sins in the Jordan, and here I have to read you telling me what he had to do.

Verse 34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.

So what? The theme is all in your head.

@ Mark 6:56 repeats this theme
Verse 56 … besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment: and as many as touched him were made whole.

This probably actually happened. How much do you know about the degrees of clinical hysteria and auto-suggestive reaction in Mediterranean races? Do you understand how this can affect enormous placebo benefits in such folks?How much real research have you really done?

@ The Transfiguration in Mark 9:1-13
Verse 3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.

Let's put a Linen garment round you, and stand you upon mount hermon at sunrise, and let me standing to the west and below take a few pics of the sunrise rays shining through your flowing hair (?) and array............. and 'blimey', I might be moved to tears.
I'm more intyerested in the boatmen's (disciples') suggestion that they erect tents for the visitors (Elijah etc) because this suggests thatthey were into (maybe) sail'n'spar sleepouts.

Jesus tells them to say ........................

...you're wandering...

@ In Mark 10:46-52 a blind man begs Jesus to be cured. Jesus calls the man to him.
50 And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus.
52 Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight
In this case, casting off old garments is connected to expressing faith in Jesus.

Rubbish. The man may probably have placed a kind of blanket upon the ground, sat upon it, and then wrapped all around. Look, Christians did (later) mess with Mark, we know that, but you're expecting folks to see stuff that they would never see.
I could take mostly any media story today and spin it into this ruibbish.

@ Mark 11:1-10 recounts the triumphal entry into Jerusalem
7 And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.
8 And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed them in the way.
9 And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord:

THe basis here, which Christians meddled with, is probably true. The suburban residents around Jerusalem made fat profits from providing services to visiting Jewish peasants. It was 'bleed the foreigners' time! And I expect that the locals did indeed gather at the city gates to greet the arriving suckers (as they no doubt thought of them) and threw down flowers, leaves, called out, greeted and such, and Christians turned this into the story that you have used to make it ALL into fable.

Taking off old garments is connected to an expression of faith in Jesus as Messiah. Mark is using verse 7 as a messianic prophecy fulfillment. See Zechariah 9:9

So why didn't Mark explain that clearly?
Honestly, if Jesus had gone for a walk around the lake you would be spinning it into religio-babble fable about 'walking towards God' or something.

@ In Mark 12:38 Jesus says to “Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing”
The scribes were among those who opposed Jesus and represent the old order. They will keep their old garments that distinguish them as important.

Of course they did! All Levites wore distinguishing dress, just as distinguished folks do today! And they were a bunch of hypocritical, corrupted, greedy backsides who didn't give a hoot for the poor-laws protected and supported the peasant folks.
Can you remember what the Baptist said about the priesthood?

@ Mark 15:24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.

Well, that was probably a junk untruth. Roman crucifixion was intended to be the most painful and embarassing humiliating last experience and Jesus would have been naked when executed. But any clothing would have been useless, bloody, torn up and worthless. So that report is truly junk. Roman soldiers would not give a thought for Jewish peasant garments.

@ Mark 15:46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.

I'm not even sure that Jesus was dead, and Joseph may have wrapped him in clean cloth.

@ Mark 16
5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

Yeah, well, Mark got well fiddled with, but sure, Jesus wasn't there all right.......... long gone.
Go outside and write down the description of the very next person who walks by you. If you're a pro you will first describe physical features, like 'young' etc, and then you will describe....... CLOTHING, and then anything held etc.
Ergo....... a young man in a long white garment. But Christians probably added all that.

The clothing of Jesus is taken, as is the clothing of the young man in the garden. Jesus is buried in a burial shroud, the same word used in the garden incident for what the young man was wearing. A young man in a white garment announces the Resurrection.

I'm not interested in the last verses of Mark.

In the light of all of the above, and the improbability of a literal interpretation of the young man who loses his shirt, the Mark 14:51-52 incident makes more sense as part of Mark’s symbolism than as something that really happened.

Nah.......... each part of the report should be judged upon its own merits. You're simply lost in the complexities of your own spin.

You'll be trying to tell us that the Jesus story is all myth next............ now that really will be fun!

 

[Dawnofhope]

Here's their reasons for believing in a young earth from Answers in Genesis. You really think none of them are credible?

Thanks for sharing. I think there are major cultural differences between NZ and the USA. Few people I associate with believe that the earth is less than 10,000 and if they did, they wouldn't say.

I have only met one person ever who professes such a belief and she is from the USA.

Have you ever believed in young earth creationalism?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I have been through all eight books, not just searching but actually reading for comprehension.. There is no mention of Sepphoris or of Mary being a pagan temple virgin as you have mentioned from time to time. Again what exactly is your point?

His point is to discredit Christian belief through the same means as Celsus.

 

[pearl]

The Christian fundamentalists of course have an aversion to common sense and just want to tell everyone its their way or the highway (to hell). You probably have a few of them in Catholic church too.

There are Catholic Christian fundamentalists, but unlike Protestant Christian fundamentalists they are literalists when it comes to church dogma, as opposed to Scripture, as evidenced so dramatically post Vatican II when many left the Church.

What's the thinking amongst you guys about the authorship of the gospels?

They were the work of anonymous authors, the names were attributed by the Church, only John names himself as the author. The Church does not interpret Scripture literally, recognizing the theological and Christological intent of the evangelists in presenting testimonies of faith in Jesus the Christ.

 

[pearl]

Not surprising. The alternative is to entertain the possibility that Matthew and Luke invented the unique portions of their stories.

Long before the writing of the Gospels there existed various worshiping church communities out of which came the Gospels, with each evangelist addressing the needs of his community.

 

[Dawnofhope]

There is considerable material in Luke that appears in Matthew but not Mark. More to the point there are numerous themes in Luke that are related to themes that otherwise appear only in Matthew but are changed into their opposites in Luke. These include the genealogy, the nativity story, the Sermon on the Mount, the reading in the synagogue in Nazareth, the focus on the journey to Jerusalem, the details of the post-resurrection narrative.

There are also subtle references to Matthew that Luke inserts that then go nowhere. An example of that is Luke beginning his narrative proper with a reference to Herod, a key figure in Matthew, and then never referring to Herod again. Luke even moves the timeframe to well beyond the lifetime of Herod despite this being out of sync with his later statements about the timing of events and the age of Jesus.

Material common to Matthew and Luke but not Mark might be explained by a common source (‘Q’) despite that source being not only missing but never mentioned by anyone in antiquity. But for those themes that are common to Matthew and Luke, but no one else, and are presented in totally opposite manner argues against such a common source. For example, which nativity story was in Q? Some scholars hypothesize lost ‘M’ and ‘L’ sources known only to Matthew and Luke.

The motivation for all of this lost document hypothesizing is the implicit assumption that Matthew and Luke relied entirely on pre-existing sources for their material. For many scholars the idea that Matthew and Luke made up much of their Gospels is unthinkable. To me, the frequent opposition of Luke to Matthew practically shouts that Luke knows all about Matthew and is intentionally changing the passages in question into their opposites. All of those passages involve Matthew stressing the exalted nature of Jesus and the specifically Jewish nature of his mission. Luke’s version stress the human nature of Jesus and the universal nature of his mission.

That is the way I see it. No mysterious ‘Q’, ‘M’ or ‘L’. Matthew used Mark and his own imagination. Luke used Mark, Matthew and his own imagination. All had their own purposes for writing.

I like your insights and knowledge. It comes from spending years reflecting on the bible, scholarship, and history. I've been a Baha'i for nearly 30 years so although of great interest, my theological world is based on Baha'u'llah, but inclusive of Christ.

The main difference in our worldviews is an apparent minimisation of the inspiration of the Holy Spirirt. Whoever the gospel writers were, their works were inspired by the same spirit that animated the life of Jesus the Christ. You may call it human imagination but the gospels of Matthew and John are brilliant works, that have deservedly stood the test of time. Few Christians would deny the spiritual authenticity and authority of the gospels.

The main problem with Bart Ehrman and some of his scholarly friends, is their loss of faith.

 

[CG Didymus]

Baha’u’llah was not a fallible human claiming to be God. He was a Manifestation of God, God’s Representative, Exponent, and Messenger, a Servant of God.

He was not fallible. He was infallible.

So what do you believe, that the powerful deity is going to fix the mess in the political system, all the religions at odds, and reverse climate change?

Is there a reason God should do that instead of delegating it to humans?

The Baha'i definition of a manifestation has been a problem for me, because Baha'is have claimed people like Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses are manifestations, but I don't see them being presented in the Bible as being infallible or as being anything but normal people.

 

[CG Didymus]

Thanks for sharing. I think there are major cultural differences between NZ and the USA. Few people I associate with believe that the earth is less than 10,000 and if they did, they wouldn't say.

I have only met one person ever who professes such a belief and she is from the USA.

Have you ever believed in young earth creationalism?

I don't believe it, but I think their arguments sound reasonable. But I don't care enough to research it. What did you learn from your thread on YEC?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't believe it, but I think their arguments sound reasonable. But I don't care enough to research it. What did you learn from your thread on YEC?

I focused on the logistics of collecting, storing, and off loading all the species in regards Noah's Ark. It confirmed my believe that the story wasn't literally true of course. There were very learned people focusing on the young earth aspect. Like you, there are other matters I would rather devote my attention to.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Baha'i definition of a manifestation has been a problem for me, because Baha'is have claimed people like Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses are manifestations, but I don't see them being presented in the Bible as being infallible or as being anything but normal people.

The concept of Manifestations of God did not exist back in Bible days because people were not able to understand it. Moses was definitely not just an ordinary man. God revealed a message to Moses at the burning bush. That is what made Him a Manifestation of God.

I also wonder about the infallibility of others such as Adam, Noah, and Abraham. I am also not sure which Prophets are really considered Manifestations of God. I was not raised with any religion so I do not know the Bible very well. Probably one of the other Baha’is could explain this better than me.

This chapter explains the difference between independent Prophets who found a new religion and prophets that are followers and promoters: 43: THE TWO CLASSES OF PROPHETS

Here is the passage that explains why we are not to differentiate between the Manifestations of God:

"Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 59-60

However, Abdu’l-Baha explains how Christ and Baha’u’llah are indeed special:

“Know that the attributes of perfection, the splendor of the divine bounties, and the lights of inspiration are visible and evident in all the Holy Manifestations; but the glorious Word of God, Christ, and the Greatest Name, Bahá’u’lláh, are manifestations and evidences which are beyond imagination, for They possess all the perfections of the former Manifestations; and more than that, They possess some perfections which make the other Manifestations dependent upon Them. So all the Prophets of Israel were centers of inspiration; Christ also was a receiver of inspiration, but what a difference between the inspiration of the Word of God and the revelations of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Elijah!” Some Answered Questions, pp. 149-150

 

[Muffled]

sorry to get here....sooooooooo late

but if He is still with His body.....He is incognito
really deep incognito

and His ascension went WHERE....????

I don't believe you recognize someone who isn't here.

I believe that was into heaven but that is a vast place.

 

[Muffled]

If Baha'u'llah is who He said He is, then the answer is that man has chosen the way they wished to interpret what was recorded as the sayings of Jesus the Christ.

I see that the Bible adequatly warns this would be so. No one likes to think that the warnings apply to their own thoughts, it is when we conceed we do not have the required knowledge, that we can let go and learn anew.

Just as Christ Disciples had to do and all the followers of Muhammad had to do. Those that cling to old thought, persecute the Messenger and Message they await, they pride in their knowledge.

Regards Tony

I do not believe he is who he said he was.

 

[Muffled]

On one hand they were recording the words of Jesus that had been passed down through oral traditions, on the other weaving His words into a narrative about the life of their Messiah that had also evolved through oral traditions. By the time the gospels were recorded, the narrative was heavily influenced by Paul's teachings to the gentiles.

I believe that is totally speculation without any foundation.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe that is totally speculation without any foundation.

Not according to many modern biblical scholars who take the time to seriously consider and investigate these matters:

Modern scholars have concluded that the Canonical Gospels went through four stages in their formation:

1. The first stage was oral, and included various stories about Jesus such as healing the sick, or debating with opponents, as well as parables and teachings.
2. In the second stage, the oral traditions began to be written down in collections (collections of miracles, collections of sayings, etc.), while the oral traditions continued to circulate
3. In the third stage, early Christians began combining the written collections and oral traditions into what might be called "proto-gospels" – hence Luke's reference to the existence of "many" earlier narratives about Jesus
4. In the fourth stage, the authors of our four Gospels drew on these proto-gospels, collections, and still-circulating oral traditions to produce the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Mark, Matthew and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they have such a high degree of interdependence. Modern scholars generally agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be written (see Markan priority). The author does not seem to have used extensive written sources, but rather to have woven together small collections and individual traditions into a coherent presentation. It is generally, though not universally, agreed that the authors of Matthew and Luke used as sources the gospel of Mark and a collection of sayings called the Q source. These two together account for the bulk of each of Matthew and Luke, with the remainder made up of smaller amounts of source material unique to each, called the M source for Matthew and the L source for Luke, which may have been a mix of written and oral material (see Two-source hypothesis). Most scholars believe that the author of John's gospel used oral and written sources different from those available to the Synoptic authors – a "signs" source, a "revelatory discourse" source, and others – although there are indications that a later editor of this gospel may have used Mark and Luke.

Oral gospel traditions - Wikipedia

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I do not believe he is who he said he was.

Thats Ok that is the way of the World and you are free to choose your path.

I can list many of Gods Messengers that a Baha'i does see as being from our One God and will live a life of Love dedicated to them, by service to all Humanity.

Abraham
Krishna
Moses
Zoroaster
Buddha
Jesus Christ
Muhammad
Bab
Baha'u'llah...to name a few well known.

They one and all are the 'Christ, the First and Last, Beginning and End.

They are all of the Resurrection.

Regards Tony

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Part 1

Gosh, the complex stuff that folks think up to rubbish a straightforward report of all......

You mean rubbish like Nazareth = Sepphoris uprising and Mary was a pagan temple virgin and Celsus knows the name of the Roman soldier 180 years later when nobody else even knows there was a Roman soldier involved?

The simple fact is that every time Mark mentions clothing it is in the context of a reference to something bigger and deeper, as I demonstrated in detail. And will again below.

A 'never to be forgotten' escape.

Who was it that escaped and what reason do you have for believing that? If Mark was a witness why does he never say so anywhere? That is, why no first person? If he was a partial witness, what exactly did he see? Support all of your contentions, please.

I love the way that you manipulate 'linen cloth' into 'nightshirt' ....... in order to help your agenda of dismissal. If you had lived as a peasant in Palestine you might see lightweight clothing in springtime as usual.

No need to manipulate anything. As I already showed and you ignored, the word sindōn that Mark uses means exactly that “a light and loose garment worn at night over a naked body”. Sounds like a nightshirt to me. The other meaning is “linen cloth, esp. that which was fine and costly, in which the bodies of the dead were wrapped”. That is in fact the primary meaning. Which do you think the man was wearing, a nightshirt or a burial shroud? Don’t forget that Mark 15:46 uses that same word for what the dead body of Jesus was wrapped in.

The night was cold as evidenced by the fully clothed guards warming themselves around a fire. No way was someone sleeping out in the open in just a nightshirt.

A man who lived out in the wastes, surviving as close to self subsistence as any man could, relying upon the sends of the seasons and the surges of the migrations.

................and you spin it into fable.

No need for a fable. John the Baptist was a real historical figure. He may very well have dressed that way. The point is what Mark does with him. John is the voice crying in the wilderness, preparing the way of the Lord. In Mark 9, Mark has Jesus apparently connect John with Elias, what the KJV calls Elijah. More on that later.

Common sense! A literal action as an example of common sense!
..............and you need to make it into myth!

So Mark in the middle of Jesus talking about how he and his movement are different from John (Mark 2:18-22) Jesus suddenly decides to give some homely advice about patching clothing. Sure…

Verse 21 No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.

John is the old. In fact he is the last of the old. Jesus is the new, not a continuation of the old. But you insist on Mark being totally literal and matter of fact in every last aspect. He could not possibly use metaphors, right?

No he did not! A total fabrication to support your agenda.
{5:15} And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
................. so Jesus had (maybe) put a garment upon him, or wrapped him around with a sailcloth? And you take a simple description and spin it into rubbish? That's what Luke and Matthew did but for other reasons.

When the demons have been cast out, the man puts clothes on or has clothes put on him. Once more Mark connects clothing with something important about Jesus. All of Mark’s references to clothing are in connection with something important about Jesus.

Perfectly reasonable account. Go people watching sometime, and see how they are into 'touch' and 'clutch' and 'hold'.

Perfectly reasonable that the woman should be instantly cured simply by touching the garment (tzitzit?) of Jesus without Jesus himself performing the cure? The passage is about faith in Jesus being more important than Jewish Law, which would have made Jesus ritually impure. Where have we heard that before? Oh yes, Paul. Once again, Jesus is something new, not a continuation of the old.

Oh please! You've already described the Baptist dressed in animal skins and he was a devoted Jew! Jesus was a Galilean peasant of the second order and here we have you deciding how he dressed two millenia ago. He was dressed in what he could afford to obtain.

Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels was an observant Jew and would have worn tzitzit as even the poorest orthodox Jewish men do today. He was shown as being able to read Hebrew and familiar with Jewish scriptures and observing the festival pilgrimages. Whether a real historic Jesus did those things is irrelevant. This is a story. In that story it is highly likely that Jesus would have been thought of as wearing tzitzit as observant Jewish men were supposed to.

Jesus had joined with the Baptist in outright contention against Temple and priesthood corruption and had been obstructing the flow of funds to both by supporting redemption of sins in the Jordan, and here I have to read you telling me what he had to do.

I already addressed your claim that John was talking to members of the priesthood. Pharisees and Sadducees were all over. It is not very likely that there were more than a few, if any, priests in the crowd John addressed, this taking place on the other side of the Jordan, about a hundred miles from Jerusalem, where Temple priests typically hung out. Even if there were some, how would John be aware of that?

I fail to see Jesus against contending against the priesthood. Jesus made the Passover pilgrimage to Jerusalem and participated in the Seder where the lambs ritually slaughtered by the priests were eaten. Those lambs were purchased from the Temple. Everyone did this and had done so for centuries. Jesus and his followers did it too.

The priests did get angry with Jesus after the moneychanger incident. (Mark 11:15-18) But the moneychangers were not priests. Pilgrims came to Jerusalem from all over the empire and beyond. To purchase sacrificial animals in the Temple courtyard one could only use acceptable money. Money from far lands that had the images of gods or kings who claimed divinity was not acceptable. (Oddly, Roman coins with images of the Emperor were OK, being the common coin of the realm.) The moneychangers exchanged ‘foreign’ coins for acceptable ones with a heavy surcharge added on. This is why Jesus called it a den of thieves. But priests themselves could not perform that function since they would have to handle idolatrous currency. In any event, there is no sign of Jesus speaking or acting against the priests before this and he later observes a Seder with the main course being a lamb purchased at the Temple. The moneychanger thing appears to be limited to just that, those who were looking to rip off the pilgrims.

So what? The theme is all in your head.

Translation: “My mind is made up. I am not going to deal in any consistent and meaningful way with anything that might interfere with that”

Silly claims like Mark’s obvious metaphor about patching old clothes being just a household hint make it clear that this is your attitude.

This probably actually happened. How much do you know about the degrees of clinical hysteria and auto-suggestive reaction in Mediterranean races? Do you understand how this can affect enormous placebo benefits in such folks?How much real research have you really done?

Irrelevant.

In fact, this passage and surrounding material sound a lot like padding, repeating themes previously introduced but without much in the way of details. Before thinking Mark is an accurate blow by blow recounting of actual events consider these.

Mark 4:35-41
Jesus calms the storm on the Sea of Galilee

Mark 6:30-44
Jesus feeds the multitudes

Mark 6:45-52
Jesus walks on water and calms the storm on the Sea of Galilee, numerous similar details

Mark 8:109
Jesus feeds the multitudes again, almost identical details

Much of Mark sounds like early traditions he received. In some cases, like the above, the traditions had been around long enough to spawn multiple variations. Mark took them all.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Part 2

Let's put a Linen garment round you, and stand you upon mount hermon at sunrise, and let me standing to the west and below take a few pics of the sunrise rays shining through your flowing hair (?) and array............. and 'blimey', I might be moved to tears.

I'm more intyerested in the boatmen's (disciples') suggestion that they erect tents for the visitors (Elijah etc) because this suggests thatthey were into (maybe) sail'n'spar sleepouts.

I guess after trekking up 9000 ft of mountain lugging sails in total darkness, one might be subject to hallucinations watching the sunrise. You do realize how silly this sounds, right?

Mark invented the Transfiguration incident for his own purposes. Jesus appearing as exalted above even the prophets of old makes him something special and worthy of the title Son of God. The prophets that appear with him are Moses and Elijah (spelled Elias in the KJV NT, transliterated from the Greek). Moses was the beginning of Torah-based Judaism as it was known at that time. In the ‘Jesus is the Messiah’ framework Mark presents, Elijah – the harbinger of the Messiah - is the end of Judaism. This is a very Pauline thought, that the Law is no longer of value.

What is very interesting in this passage is that Jesus says that Elijah has already came. But who is he? Mark has told us right at the beginning but not so obviously.

Mark 1:2-6
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;

Verses 2 and 3 contain two scriptural references. Mark uses them to point to John in verse 4. John is the ‘voice crying in the wilderness’ (Isaiah 40:3) He is also the messenger who will prepare the way. (Malachi 3:1) But who is this messenger. Mark does not quote it but Malachi tells us that it is Elijah.

Malachi 4:5 See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.

Why does Mark not just tell us outright that John is Elijah? Because to discover something by one’s self with some effort is more conducive to belief than being told it outright. So is the Transfiguration passage referenced above, Elijah has come, with the Messiah (Jesus) arriving as prophesied. And the Messiah has brought something new, replacing Jewish Law with faith and not just building on the Law.

...you're wandering...

Not at all, as I have shown above. But you are breaking coherent passages into pieces to hide the overall meaning. Mark 9:2-12 is all one piece.

Rubbish. The man may probably have placed a kind of blanket upon the ground, sat upon it, and then wrapped all around. Look, Christians did (later) mess with Mark, we know that, but you're expecting folks to see stuff that they would never see.
I could take mostly any media story today and spin it into this ruibbish.

Once again you are trying to make Mark into literal word-for-word depictions of actual events. It I a story arranged to make points. In this case it is about faith.

The blind man expresses faith in Jesus as the Messiah and asks to be able to see
Jesus calls him and he comes, leaving his old garment behind
He is cured and now can see.
Does it get more obvious than this?

In what way did Christians later ‘mess with’ Mark? What exactly did they change and how do you know this? Provide credible evidence please.

THe basis here, which Christians meddled with, is probably true. The suburban residents around Jerusalem made fat profits from providing services to visiting Jewish peasants. It was 'bleed the foreigners' time! And I expect that the locals did indeed gather at the city gates to greet the arriving suckers (as they no doubt thought of them) and threw down flowers, leaves, called out, greeted and such, and Christians turned this into the story that you have used to make it ALL into fable.

So you are saying that all of this fuss at the entry to Jerusalem in Mark 11:1-10, including laying down clothes and branches, was about getting money out of Jesus who according to you could not even afford the clothing required for observant Jews. What was that word again? Oh yes, RUBBISH!

And again, what was this alleged meddling about. What was changed, who change it and how do you know this? Real evidence please, not more conspiracy theories.

So why didn't Mark explain that clearly?
Honestly, if Jesus had gone for a walk around the lake you would be spinning it into religio-babble fable about 'walking towards God' or something.

If Mark had provided fifteen instances of Jesus walking that were always closely associated with a single theme and no instances at all of Jesus walking in any other context, something might be made of that. As it is, such a thing cannot be found in Mark. However, there are fifteen instances of Mark mentioning clothing closely connected to much larger points about Jesus, with no instances of clothing being mentioned in the absence of such references. But I forgot, the metaphors Jesus uses are not really metaphors. They are just household hints from Heloise.

Of course they did! All Levites wore distinguishing dress, just as distinguished folks do today! And they were a bunch of hypocritical, corrupted, greedy backsides who didn't give a hoot for the poor-laws protected and supported the peasant folks.
Can you remember what the Baptist said about the priesthood?

So why did Mark want to talk about their clothes? Because that was a mark of their identity as scribes (who were enemies of Jesus) and a signal for them to be saluted. Again, Mark imbues clothing with meaning beyond the mere clothing itself.

John the Baptist said nothing whatsoever about the priesthood as already debunked in a previous post and again above. And Mark says that they are scribes (experts in the Law) not Levites (priests). Your obsession with the priesthood is not based on anything real, this being the case with all of your fantasies.

Well, that was probably a junk untruth. Roman crucifixion was intended to be the most painful and embarassing humiliating last experience and Jesus would have been naked when executed. But any clothing would have been useless, bloody, torn up and worthless. So that report is truly junk. Roman soldiers would not give a thought for Jewish peasant garments.

It is a prophecy fulfillment. Mark includes it because it is about clothing, specifically about it being removed, as the young man’s clothing is removed in Mark 14:51-52. And it happens at the time of the crucifixion, one of the major events in the story. What really happened is irrelevant.

The soldiers casting lots for the clothing is a reference to Psalm 22:18. Psalm 22 is a cry of suffering and messianic expectations. Mark has Jesus cry out the words of Psalm 22:1.

I'm not even sure that Jesus was dead, and Joseph may have wrapped him in clean cloth.

Oh please, not another ‘Jesus was still alive’ conspiracy theory. If you want conspiracy theories, there is a much more probable one, that the body was stolen, if even buried at all and someone in on it claimed Jesus rose from the dead and went away. In any event, Mark’s story, which is intended to support proto-Christianity, definitely requires Jesus to be dead. Without resurrection from the dead already demonstrated as possible, the promise of a future resurrection and judgment is an empty one. See 1 Corinthians 15. BTW we know Mark read 1 Corinthians, since his bread and wine = body and blood passage (Mark 14:22-24) is very close to Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 11:22-25.

Joseph did not just wrap Jesus in a clean cloth. The Greek word used in Mark 15:46 is sindōn, the same word used in Mark 14:51-52 as what the young man was wearing, that was taken off him. I am sure you remember by now that the primary meaning of this word is burial shroud and the secondary meaning is night shirt. Also recall that the word used to describe the young man in that incident (neantikos) is the same word Mark uses for the young man who announces the risen Jesus in Mark 16:5-6. Jesus is arrested, leading to his trial, death and burial. Jesus is buried in a sindōn The young man mentioned at the beginning of this sequence loses his sindōn. After the resurrection, a young man announcing that total reversal of fortune is clothed.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Part 3

Yeah, well, Mark got well fiddled with, but sure, Jesus wasn't there all right.......... long gone.
Go outside and write down the description of the very next person who walks by you. If you're a pro you will first describe physical features, like 'young' etc, and then you will describe....... CLOTHING, and then anything held etc.
Ergo....... a young man in a long white garment. But Christians probably added all that.

Mark does not describe how everyone he mentions was dressed. Nor in the passages I referenced is the clothing always described. Often it is only mentioned. Yet it every single one of those passages the clothing is connected with a significant event.

Mark 1:2-8
John the Baptist (Elijah) is introduced

Mark 2:18-21
The metaphor of old and new garments
John is the old. Jesus is the new.

Mark 5:1-20
After the legion of demons is drive out of the man, he puts on clothes.
Jesus is proven the Son of God, recognized as such by the demons and demonstrated as such by his power over them.

Mark 5:25-34
The woman is cured by an act of faith in touching the garment of Jesus, an act that violates Jewish Law
Faith replacing the Law is right out of Paul

Mark 6:56
Again, people are cured by an act of faith, by touching the garment of Jesus

Mark 9:1-13
The shining garment of Jesus shows who he is
The figures of Moses and Elijah connect to the beginning and end of Torah-based Judaism, which Jesus supplants. (Paul again)
Elijah (John) has already come, which makes Jesus the Messiah

Mark 10:46-52
The blind man expresses faith in Jesus as the Messiah and asks to see
Jesus calls him and he comes, leaving his old garment behind
He is cured and now can see.
Does it get more obvious than this?

Mark 11:1-10
The entry into Jerusalem
The disciples take off garments and put them on the colt for Jesus to sit on
The people take off garments and out them on the ground in front of Jesus

Mark 12:38
“Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces”
These opponents of Jesus are recognized by their clothing. Beware them.

Mark 13:16
In describing the tribulations at the end of days, Jesus says
“And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.”
Too late to try to change anything, judgment is at hand.

Mark 14:51-52
A young man (neantikos)) loses his nightshirt(sindōn) at the hands of those arresting Jesus
Jesus is arrested, the beginning of the events leading to his death

Mark 15:16-20Jesus is mocked by putting a purple robe and a crown of thorns on him
The Roman charge against him is ‘King of the Jews’, which ironically is a messianic title

Mark 15:24
Jesus is crucified without clothing
The soldiers casting lots for the clothing is a reference to Psalm 22:18. Psalm 22 is a cry of suffering and messianic expectations. Mark has Jesus cry out the words of Psalm 22:1

Mark 15:46
When he is dead, Jesus is wrapped in a sindōn. This is the end of the events involving his death
The same word is used in Mark 14:51-52 in connection with the beginning of those events.
There the sindōn is taken off. Here it is put on.

Mark 16:5-6
A young man (neantikos) dressed in a white robe announce the resurrection of Jesus.
Mark refers to clothing fifteen times. Every single one of those references is in connection with an important point about Jesus. There are NO casual references to clothing as mere descriptions.

I'm not interested in the last verses of Mark.

You should be. The question of why the original Mark ended at Mark 16:8 is a very interesting one. The tomb is empty and a young man Jesus rose from the dead and went to Galilee. The Gospel ends with no one seeing the risen Jesus. We know Mark read 1 Corinthians because of the almost word for word quote from Paul. Why did he not incorporate Paul’s elaborate story of the 500+ post-resurrection sightings from 1 Corinthians 15:3-8?

Mark includes a number of pericopes that sound very credible as early traditions concerning Jesus. One notable example is the argument over Oral Torah versus Written Torah in Mark 7:1-13. One possibility concerning the ending of Mark is that this was also an early tradition concerning Jesus, that an empty tomb was found and someone said Jesus got up and left without being seen. If that were the case, if it really happened that way, it could be the origin of the resurrection story.

Another alternative is that this simply fits into the structure of Mark’s presentation. Mark begins with John the Baptist announcing the arrival of Jesus. And Mark ends with someone announcing the departure of Jesus. Mark was written alter enough, after 70 AD, that the idea of Jesus having risen from the dead was part and parcel of proto-Christianity. Mark’s program was to re-energize faith in Jesus returning so long after he left, a promise found in Paul’s writings. This is why we see the ‘not taste death’ promise and the ‘this generation’ prophecy found in the Olivet Discourse, which has the destruction of the Temple prophesied as the first sign of the beginning of the end. Having a prophecy supposedly made some 40 years earlier being recognized as actually having ‘come true’ sets up the reader for believing in it.

Mark felt no need to invent a story about post-resurrection witnesses and the like, having received no pre-existing tradition about that and probably finding the over the top Pauline story far too unsubtle for his purposes. Having his story end that way would fit well with how Mark treats the subject of John and Elijah, with the connection only alluded to, not spelled out.

And as is frequently the case with Mark, that way underlines the message of having faith.

Nah.......... each part of the report should be judged upon its own merits. You're simply lost in the complexities of your own spin.

You do not want to see connections between parts. You even go to the length of breaking passages apart into separate sentences and treating them separately to avoid looking at the Big Picture. I am not lost. You are lost, shutting your eyes because you do not want to abandon an idea that does not work and for which you have no support. But that is already a familiar story with you.

You'll be trying to tell us that the Jesus story is all myth next............ now that really will be fun!

On the contrary, everyone Paul writes to already knows that there was a religious figure named Jesus, that he was crucified, that he supposedly rose from the dead (although not everyone believed this) and that he was called Son of God, a probable messianic reference. All this suggests that there really was a Jesus. Why make up a story about the messiah getting crucified? All the other supernatural trappings, including the interpretation of ‘Son of God’ in the manner of Philo, the crucifixion as sacrifice, and the resurrection as promise, appear to have come from Paul himself.



I find it quite ironic that you insist on taking every last thing in Mark as literal but when it comes to Celsus, who is so dependent on Matthew, you disregard the details in Matthew that totally sink your Sepphoris fantasy. In Matthew Jesus is born while Herod is alive. The Sepphoris incident happened after Herod was dead.

 

[pearl]

One possibility concerning the ending of Mark is that this was also an early tradition concerning Jesus, that an empty tomb was found and someone said Jesus got up and left without being seen.

According to some the tradition that the tomb was known and was empty is considerably older than the Gospel narratives that have been built around its discovery. The insight of faith shaped the narratives of the discovery of the tomb. The revealed solution to the ambiguity of the empty tomb, that it was empty because Jesus had been raised, was incorporated into these narratives by the intro of one or more angels who proclaimed; 'He was raised'.

 

[oldbadger]

Part 1

You mean rubbish like Nazareth = Sepphoris uprising and Mary was a pagan temple virgin and Celsus knows the name of the Roman soldier 180 years later when nobody else even knows there was a Roman soldier involved?

The simple fact is that every time Mark mentions clothing it is in the context of a reference to something bigger and deeper, as I demonstrated in detail. And will again below.

Yes......... Celcus got his info from somewhere, and since all his work was lost it's easy to see how his sources were lost.

I will let you rant on a bit further and then we can look at Mark's mention of the youth in Gethsemane. OK?

Who was it that escaped and what reason do you have for believing that? If Mark was a witness why does he never say so anywhere? That is, why no first person? If he was a partial witness, what exactly did he see? Support all of your contentions, please.

No need to manipulate anything. As I already showed and you ignored, the word sindōn that Mark uses means exactly that “a light and loose garment worn at night over a naked body”. Sounds like a nightshirt to me. The other meaning is “linen cloth, esp. that which was fine and costly, in which the bodies of the dead were wrapped”. That is in fact the primary meaning. Which do you think the man was wearing, a nightshirt or a burial shroud? Don’t forget that Mark 15:46 uses that same word for what the dead body of Jesus was wrapped in.

The night was cold as evidenced by the fully clothed guards warming themselves around a fire. No way was someone sleeping out in the open in just a nightshirt.

No need for a fable. John the Baptist was a real historical figure. He may very well have dressed that way. The point is what Mark does with him. John is the voice crying in the wilderness, preparing the way of the Lord. In Mark 9, Mark has Jesus apparently connect John with Elias, what the KJV calls Elijah. More on that later.

So Mark in the middle of Jesus talking about how he and his movement are different from John (Mark 2:18-22) Jesus suddenly decides to give some homely advice about patching clothing. Sure…

Verse 21 No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.

John is the old. In fact he is the last of the old. Jesus is the new, not a continuation of the old. But you insist on Mark being totally literal and matter of fact in every last aspect. He could not possibly use metaphors, right?

When the demons have been cast out, the man puts clothes on or has clothes put on him. Once more Mark connects clothing with something important about Jesus. All of Mark’s references to clothing are in connection with something important about Jesus.

Perfectly reasonable that the woman should be instantly cured simply by touching the garment (tzitzit?) of Jesus without Jesus himself performing the cure? The passage is about faith in Jesus being more important than Jewish Law, which would have made Jesus ritually impure. Where have we heard that before? Oh yes, Paul. Once again, Jesus is something new, not a continuation of the old.

Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels was an observant Jew and would have worn tzitzit as even the poorest orthodox Jewish men do today. He was shown as being able to read Hebrew and familiar with Jewish scriptures and observing the festival pilgrimages. Whether a real historic Jesus did those things is irrelevant. This is a story. In that story it is highly likely that Jesus would have been thought of as wearing tzitzit as observant Jewish men were supposed to.

I already addressed your claim that John was talking to members of the priesthood. Pharisees and Sadducees were all over. It is not very likely that there were more than a few, if any, priests in the crowd John addressed, this taking place on the other side of the Jordan, about a hundred miles from Jerusalem, where Temple priests typically hung out. Even if there were some, how would John be aware of that?

I fail to see Jesus against contending against the priesthood. Jesus made the Passover pilgrimage to Jerusalem and participated in the Seder where the lambs ritually slaughtered by the priests were eaten. Those lambs were purchased from the Temple. Everyone did this and had done so for centuries. Jesus and his followers did it too.

The priests did get angry with Jesus after the moneychanger incident. (Mark 11:15-18) But the moneychangers were not priests. Pilgrims came to Jerusalem from all over the empire and beyond. To purchase sacrificial animals in the Temple courtyard one could only use acceptable money. Money from far lands that had the images of gods or kings who claimed divinity was not acceptable. (Oddly, Roman coins with images of the Emperor were OK, being the common coin of the realm.) The moneychangers exchanged ‘foreign’ coins for acceptable ones with a heavy surcharge added on. This is why Jesus called it a den of thieves. But priests themselves could not perform that function since they would have to handle idolatrous currency. In any event, there is no sign of Jesus speaking or acting against the priests before this and he later observes a Seder with the main course being a lamb purchased at the Temple. The moneychanger thing appears to be limited to just that, those who were looking to rip off the pilgrims.

Translation: “My mind is made up. I am not going to deal in any consistent and meaningful way with anything that might interfere with that”

Silly claims like Mark’s obvious metaphor about patching old clothes being just a household hint make it clear that this is your attitude.

Irrelevant.

In fact, this passage and surrounding material sound a lot like padding, repeating themes previously introduced but without much in the way of details. Before thinking Mark is an accurate blow by blow recounting of actual events consider these.

Mark 4:35-41
Jesus calms the storm on the Sea of Galilee

Mark 6:30-44
Jesus feeds the multitudes

Mark 6:45-52
Jesus walks on water and calms the storm on the Sea of Galilee, numerous similar details

Mark 8:109
Jesus feeds the multitudes again, almost identical details

Much of Mark sounds like early traditions he received. In some cases, like the above, the traditions had been around long enough to spawn multiple variations. Mark took them all.

It's no good you shouting your argument at me.
You use script that you don't believe in to disprove a story you don't believe in, and when you quote it you tell us all how it was exactly meant!

You don't 'get it' that the flight of the youth was an 'aside' to the main report, an irrelevance really, a personal 'aside', and that Christians needed to find or fabricate a reason for all of the bible's account, just as they needed to edit, fiddle, add their other stuff. This is clearly shown in Josephus's account of Jesus, for example.

And so when they came to Mark's brief mention of a kid legging it, they HAD to find a Christian reason for all, and it amuses me that the mythers cling to such ideas as closely as some Christians need to.

Most of your rants are far too long, you know, but I did notice how little you know about about the Temple currency. You mentioned that foreign currencies (with foreign deities etc) were not acceptable............. thus the need for temple coin. You really need to learn about the Temple coinage, it was introduced by the Romans and HerodtG had to found a mint in Tyre which could strike coins in exact weight and silver purity because Romans were exact about all accounting matters. They took tribute from Temple takings. Circa 17BC Herod closed down the Tyrian mint and founded another near Jerusalem, which struck a much more primitive coin but its weight and purity were still exact. These 'Tyrian' half and full shekels ALL had the features of Melgarth Heracles (known to the Jews as BAAL) on the obverse and the abbreviated initials (in Greek) of CAESAR with a graven image on the reverse, and so Baal and graven images were ALL OVER the Temple

Understand? The story is corrupted but the truth hides within. Jesus had big issues with the priesthood and the Temple, far beyond your understanding at this time.

Look at the story of the coin, so corrupted that it became a denarius (penny) when it most probably was a half-shekel, and this makes Jesus' comment very very clever, far beyond previous understandings. He didn't ask 'What's on the front, mate?' He asked 'What's the head, AND THE INSCRIPTION' which of course was Caesar's, giving the priests the chance to lie to his face about the features, the crowd would surely have fallen upon those priests..........

You're relying on Christian adaptation to fit your agenda of myth, and just looks funny.

You cannot make myth of Yeshua BarYosef, there's just enough to beat you at that game.