Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

[Ben Masada]

Yes.

Try 20 to 30 years for Mark, Ben.

I have verified data by a Committee of Bishops, Catholic schollastic Historians that establish the coming to light of the gospel of Mark soon after the War, which resulted in the destruction of the Temple, Then, the gospel of Luke in the year 75 CE, then, Matthew in 85 CE, and at last, John between 95 and 100 CE.

 

[sojourner]

And Q, from which Matt. and Lk. were taken (a very Gallilean document), prior to the year 45.

 

[Oberon]

I have verified data by a Committee of Bishops, Catholic schollastic Historians that establish the coming to light of the gospel of Mark soon after the War, which resulted in the destruction of the Temple, Then, the gospel of Luke in the year 75 CE, then, Matthew in 85 CE, and at last, John between 95 and 100 CE.

What committee?

There is still a division of scholarship in scholarship as to whether or not Mark was composed before or after the destruction of the temple. In any case, both Mark and Q were written less than 50 years after Jesus died.

 

[Ben Masada]

What committee?

There is still a division of scholarship in scholarship as to whether or not Mark was composed before or after the destruction of the temple. In any case, both Mark and Q were written less than 50 years after Jesus died.

It really does not matter when this gospel was written, as long as it was written at least about 10 years after Paul was done with his writings. Since the gospel writers were Paul's former disciples, they had to reflect the Pauline Christology.

 

[Oberon]

It really does not matter when this gospel was written, as long as it was written at least about 10 years after Paul was done with his writings. Since the gospel writers were Paul's former disciples, they had to reflect the Pauline Christology.

Only you have no basis for asserting they were Paul's former disciples. They show no awareness of his letters (and, in fact, we actually know that Luke at least did not have access to some of his letters), Paul attests to various christian communities even in his time, let alone a decade or two later, so you have no evidence whatsoever for this.

 

[Ben Masada]

Only you have no basis for asserting they were Paul's former disciples. They show no awareness of his letters (and, in fact, we actually know that Luke at least did not have access to some of his letters), Paul attests to various christian communities even in his time, let alone a decade or two later, so you have no evidence whatsoever for this.

Read Acts 16:10-17; Acts 21:1-18; II Timothy 4:11; Colossians 4:14; Philemon v. 24. Then, come back to tell me whom is Luke talking about of being a companion to. That's evidence that Luke was Paul's disciple.

Now, let's go for Mark. You can start with Philemon v. 24; Colossians 4:10,11;
Acts 13:13; 15:37,38; II Timothy 4:11. Then, tell me if Mark was not a follower of Paul's. Therefore, a disciple, because we all know Paul would never be the disciple of anyone.

Now, about Matthew and John, I can't provide the evidences, because they preferred to publish their gospels under those two names of the Apostles Matthew and John. So, I don't know what real names they had. Perhaps Paul himself wrote them.

 

[Oberon]

Read Acts 16:10-17; Acts 21:1-18; II Timothy 4:11; Colossians 4:14; Philemon v. 24. Then, come back to tell me whom is Luke talking about of being a companion to. That's evidence that Luke was Paul's disciple.

Now, let's go for Mark. You can start with Philemon v. 24; Colossians 4:10,11;
Acts 13:13; 15:37,38; II Timothy 4:11. Then, tell me if Mark was not a follower of Paul's. Therefore, a disciple, because we all know Paul would never be the disciple of anyone.

Now, about Matthew and John, I can't provide the evidences, because they preferred to publish their gospels under those two names of the Apostles Matthew and John. So, I don't know what real names they had. Perhaps Paul himself wrote them.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, none of the gospels were "published" with the names we give them. They were all written anonymously. Second, if John Mark was the writer of Mark, then he was a disciple of Peter, not Paul. Finally, the fact that the author of Luke/Acts was present with Paul doesn't make him a disiple of Paul. We know that he wasn't aware of at least some of Paul's letters, because Acts differs with these letters in some details. Further, although the author of Luke/Acts sometimes is in the company of Paul, so was Peter, so were lots of people. The author never calls him "my master" or anything to indicate a teacher/master and student/disciple relationship. Finally, Paul didn't write 2 Timothy.

 

[Mr Cheese]

We all know that Jesus was an Orthodox religious Jew,

We can stop this whole thread here

because no, we do not

This is YOUR assumption.

A rather dishonest one

 

[Mr Cheese]

.



The expression "seven demons" is not to be interpreted literally. It means only the struggle Jesus had to go through to extricate Mary from her style of life. Jews don't believe in demons.

Jews dont believe in demons?

hmm thats why jews have had amulets and talismans to ward off demons for centuries huh...

Of course these are non orthodox practises, but Jewish none the less

Of course 7 demons, is well, ahem, GNOSTIC

you see the Gnostics believed in 7 levels, seven false heavens...

This is of course related to the 7 days of creation, and 7 directions

the 7 directions are up down forwad back and within, this is derived from genesis, the tree surrounded by 4 rivers. So we have 7 days of creation, 7 hells...

If we look to kabbalah we can see further, the greater face is made up of the lwer 7 emanations, the greater face of the upper 3. We can literally say, the first 7 are of humanity, the upper three are "more" than humanity.

If we want a strictly Jewish interpretation we again see 7. The male child is circumcised on the 8th day. This is often noted as a part of the covenant with God. It is also seen to be signifier of one more than 7, one more than creation, this is rabbinical doctrine.

The following is an extract discussing the 7 demons in the gospel of Mary

The “Gospel of Mary” not only reflects Luke’s description but clarifies for the Gnostic how to deal with the seven devils, known as The Seven Forms of Wrath. In the Mary Gospel a Monadic set is disclosed in the text (Chapter eight) that ancient Gnostics would recognize immediately. The study of the Monad is essential to Gnostic transcendence. For the Sethian Gnostic, the Monad is an energy that permeates everything like the force of ‘Chi’ in the study of Chinese philosophy.

The system of the Monad used by the Sethian Christians and Pythagoreans before them, is used as a tool of meditation and contemplation. It is a method to examine how an action whether physical or mental can be measured or attributed to a cause and effect using the paradigm. It is virtually a study of the ‘Spirit’ and how it flows.

The system of study starts with understanding the function of the ‘void’ or empty space, used in contemplation. In a Sethian Monadology, anything that enters that empty space is connected to the Monad, i.e. Jesus. This is expressed in Gnostic Scripture, as ”Jesus is Silence.” (”A Valentinian Exposition&#8221

Sets form from the Monad, or One, and expand to the dyad, triad, tetrad etc. An energy generated from the Monad runs through the set like a form of current. This holds true for any size of sets. The sets have innate characteristics like electric elements in a parallel electric circuit. They have opposites like good and evil which are also constants in the makeup of Monadic sets. It is easy to see this energy in simple dualities going from pole to pole, and this is what denotes ‘balance’ between poles like positive and negative. If a set is a ‘positive,’ it has a negative opposite, and probably ‘like units.’



As sets get larger they get more complex as to how the polarity works within the set. At the level of the pentad (5), Sets are used like a circle to show how the units are interacting within the ‘magic’ circle, which the units form. Everything within this space can be measured (seen) through the process of identifying the particular type of a unit in a set, and how it interacts with other members of the set. Units of a set can act as an entire unit, independently, or as subsets.
This is a description of the Seven Forms of Wrath, from the “Gospel of Mary.”
”The first form is darkness, the second desire, the third ignorance, the fourth is the excitement of death, the fifth is the kingdom of the flesh, the sixth is the foolish wisdom of flesh, the seventh is the wrathful wisdom. These are the seven powers of wrath.” (Chapter 8, “Gospel of Mary&#8221


It is probably not an accident that some of the units like ‘excitement of death’ seem vague in what they might entail. Excitement of Death holds the ‘Tetrad’ position in the set, so probably, it has broad or multiple meanings including fear, panic, perhaps murder and bloodlust.


Sethians held that flesh or the body was matter. The Kingdom of the Flesh is probably a way to paraphrase the kenoma. (being imperfect trapped in matter) This is to say that the Kingdom of the Flesh is flawed from the Pleroma. Foolish Wisdom of the Flesh probably includes sexual matters, and other behaviors, some that might be abusive. Dark Side monadic sets, connote the extreme of pure evil.
All Sethian Monadic sets start with ‘Word,’ meaning ‘Jesus Wisdom,’ (Holy Spirit) and end with Knowledge, Wisdom, Gnosis, or an equivalent term that denotes ‘Gnostic’ knowledge. The lower sets from Tetrad on up, simply are not as useful as an “Ogdoad.” It is at this level that things become clear as to cause and effect, and things inside the ‘circle’ can be manipulated. This is what the Chinese learned about applying the Tai Chi, and Sethians learned about the Monad.

Reflection for January 14, 2008: The Exorcism of Mariamne’s Demons « Prayers and Reflections

The sequence at the level of the Pentad, and higher in the Gnostic teachings include the designation of the Gnostic as a controlling factor. The sequence therefore looks like this….

(Word), (dyad or influence of duality), (c.), (d), (e), etc. depending upon the size of the set, and the last unit being the Gnostic, (Knowledge). So the Seven Forms of Wrath in the “Gospel of Mary,” as an evil form looks like a simple list. This is the passage from which the Seven Forms are introduced…

“When the soul had overcome the third power, it went upwards and saw the fourth power, which took seven forms.
The first form is darkness, the second desire, the third ignorance, the fourth is the excitement of death, the fifth is the kingdom of the flesh, the sixth is the foolish wisdom of flesh, the seventh is the wrathful wisdom. These are the seven powers of wrath.” (Chapter 8., “Gospel of Mary&#8220
Here the evil power (form) can be shown as, (darkness, desire, ignorance, excitement of death, kingdom of the flesh, foolish wisdom of the flesh, and wrathful wisdom.) The reader will note the last member of this set, uses the term wisdom, and this denotes the use of ‘evil knowledge.’ This would be congruent with the Christian Gnostic form.
When Mary in the Gospel says she is overcoming the demons, the formula in the Monadology looks like this…
(Word), (darkness, which is the duality factor in this set), (desire), (ignorance), (excitement of death), (kingdom of the flesh), (foolish wisdom of the flesh), and ( The ‘Knowledge’ to control the wrathful wisdom under the influence of darkness).

http://magdelene.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/the-math-of-the-word-by-tom-saunders/

 

[Ben Masada]

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, none of the gospels were "published" with the names we give them. They were all written anonymously. Second, if John Mark was the writer of Mark, then he was a disciple of Peter, not Paul. Finally, the fact that the author of Luke/Acts was present with Paul doesn't make him a disiple of Paul. We know that he wasn't aware of at least some of Paul's letters, because Acts differs with these letters in some details. Further, although the author of Luke/Acts sometimes is in the company of Paul, so was Peter, so were lots of people. The author never calls him "my master" or anything to indicate a teacher/master and student/disciple relationship. Finally, Paul didn't write 2 Timothy.

Tell me, can you show me whenever did Plato call Socrates his master? I read all his Dialogues, and I don't recall it. It means a disciple does not have to call his master as such to have been a disciple of his.

And with regards to Mark being a disciple of Peter there isn't the slightest chance. Peter was a Nazarene Jew with much better things to do than to dictate Hellenism so that Mark could put down in his gospel.

 

[Ben Masada]

We can stop this whole thread here

because no, we do not

This is YOUR assumption.

A rather dishonest one

No sir, it is not my assumption. If there is an assumption here with regards to Jesus being a religious Jew, Matthew is the one with it. Read Matthew 5:19. Jesus declared to have come to confirm the Jewish laws down to the letter and to warn us all to teach them without any change whatsoever. A non-religious Jew would care less about Jewish laws.

 

[Oberon]

Tell me, can you show me whenever did Plato call Socrates his master? I read all his Dialogues, and I don't recall it. It means a disciple does not have to call his master as such to have been a disciple of his.

First, all of Plato's dialogues feature Socrates, not Plato. Second, that is not the only source of information we have to indicate that Plato was a disciple of Socrates. Finally, even if we had only Plato's dialogues, we would be aware of the master/disciple relationship because of how Plato writes himself in in the few scenes he is present. Also, Socrates is his central character through whom he speaks. Only Luke mentions Paul, and only in his history of the early church. There is nothing to indicate discipleship anywhere.

And with regards to Mark being a disciple of Peter there isn't the slightest chance. Peter was a Nazarene Jew with much better things to do than to dictate Hellenism so that Mark could put down in his gospel.

I didn't say that John Mark wrote Mark, I only said he was Peter's disciple, not Paul's. Whether he is also the author of the gospel which is attributed to him, we will never know. But the point is, there is zero evidence anywhere to suggest that all of the gospels or ANY of the gospels were "disciples" of Paul. You simply made that up.

 

[Ben Masada]

Jews dont believe in demons?

hmm thats why jews have had amulets and talismans to ward off demons for centuries huh...

Of course these are non orthodox practises, but Jewish none the less

Of course 7 demons, is well, ahem, GNOSTIC

you see the Gnostics believed in 7 levels, seven false heavens...

This is of course related to the 7 days of creation, and 7 directions

the 7 directions are up down forwad back and within, this is derived from genesis, the tree surrounded by 4 rivers. So we have 7 days of creation, 7 hells...

If we look to kabbalah we can see further, the greater face is made up of the lwer 7 emanations, the greater face of the upper 3. We can literally say, the first 7 are of humanity, the upper three are "more" than humanity.

If we want a strictly Jewish interpretation we again see 7. The male child is circumcised on the 8th day. This is often noted as a part of the covenant with God. It is also seen to be signifier of one more than 7, one more than creation, this is rabbinical doctrine.

The following is an extract discussing the 7 demons in the gospel of Mary

Well, Mr. Cheese, no offense meant, but I mean Jews who believe by Reason and not by superstitions. I did read all your research and I found in it a description of a system of superstitions. The apogee in the opposite direction of Reason. I have also read that the number seven can be used to describe the almost impossible for one to succeed in a certain enterprise. That's how I look at the case of the seven demons in Mary Magdalene vis-a-vis the struggle Jesus had to face to help her out.

Jews who are conscious by Reason that God is Absolutely One and Incorporeal are extrictly out of question to admit the belief in the things of Christianity like demnons, hell, heaven, angels as beings, Satan as a being, and a lot of similar nonsense.

I am not a kabbala Jew, and I have never accepted an invitation to flock with them exactly for the superstitious mysticism they are all about. And believe it or not, I have read the book "Zohah".

 

[Mr Cheese]

No sir, it is not my assumption. If there is an assumption here with regards to Jesus being a religious Jew, Matthew is the one with it. Read Matthew 5:19. Jesus declared to have come to confirm the Jewish laws down to the letter and to warn us all to teach them without any change whatsoever. A non-religious Jew would care less about Jewish laws.

Matthew 5:19 (Young's Literal Translation)


19`Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands -- the least -- and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach [them], he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.

Matthew 5:19 (Worldwide English (New Testament))


19So anyone who does not obey one of the smallest laws, and teaches other people not to obey it, will have the smallest part in the kingdom of heaven. But any one who obeys and teaches the law, will have a big part in the kingdom of heaven.

etc.

This does not say Jesus in an orthodox Jew....
get a grip.

Again this is YOUR assumption. In fact it is MORE LIKELY he was NOT an Orthodox Jew

rereading your missive, you are aware there were many groups of "Jews" back then... you jump from orthodox to relgious. I would frankly agree he was religious, but not orthodox, as in Hasidic or similar.... or frankly one of the several religious groups that has survived to be called a Jew now....

 

[Mr Cheese]

Well, Mr. Cheese, no offense meant, but I mean Jews who believe by Reason and not by superstitions. I did read all your research and I found in it a description of a system of superstitions. The apogee in the opposite direction of Reason. I have also read that the number seven can be used to describe the almost impossible for one to succeed in a certain enterprise. That's how I look at the case of the seven demons in Mary Magdalene vis-a-vis the struggle Jesus had to face to help her out.

Jews who are conscious by Reason that God is Absolutely One and Incorporeal are extrictly out of question to admit the belief in the things of Christianity like demnons, hell, heaven, angels as beings, Satan as a being, and a lot of similar nonsense.

I am not a kabbala Jew, and I have never accepted an invitation to flock with them exactly for the superstitious mysticism they are all about. And believe it or not, I have read the book "Zohah".

You have read the Zohar (cough cough Zohah) have you? lol
Just because you don't accept demons, does not mean Jews havent

You obviously do not understand anythign I have expressed about the number 7...
You think there would be some significance of the 7 days of creation, it is not 6 or 9 but 7... why 7???

...




Among the different kinds of Hebrew amulets which are made known to us by the Bible may be mentioned:

1. The Saharôn, which was probably made of metal and had the form of a crescent, i.e. the crescent moon. It was worn by women (Isaiah. 3:18), and by kings (Judges 8:26), and was tied to the necks of camels (ibid., verse 21) to protect them from the Evil Eye. The crescent was a favourite amulet among many peoples of Western Asia, and it represented to them the strength and protection of the waxing and not the waning moon. The Himyarites and other peoples of Arabia added a star to the crescent, and the Abyssinians adopted both as sacred emblems, as at a later period the Turks did also.
   
2. The Terâphîm. These were small figures of men or of gods in the forms of men, presumably made of clay generally, but some were probably made of semi-precious stones if they were intended to be worn on the body. They seem to have been of the same character as the so-called "Papsukkal" figures.....Babylonian amulets. We first hear of them in Genesis 31:19, 30, where we read that Rachel, the daughter of Laban, stole the terâphîm of her father and went away with them when she accompanied her husband Jacob when he fled from Laban's house. The respect in which Laban regarded these figures is evident from the fact that he calls them "my gods"; and they must have been easily portable, for Rachel hid them in her camel's saddle. See also Judges 18:24. It is clear that although many men kept terâphîm in their houses, e.g. David (1 Samuel 19:13), and Micah, who had a "house of gods" and made an ephod and terâphîm (Judges 17:5), they were regarded as profane things and were associated with the heathen practice of divination. Before Jacob went to Bethel to present himself before Yahweh he made all his people to hand over to him their "strange gods" and ear-rings (i.e. crescent-shaped amulets), and he hid them under the oak which was in Shechem (Genesis 35:4). There were apparently several kinds of terâphîm, i.e. some were kept in the house or tent and were regarded as household gods, like the penates, some were hung on the bodies of animals, and some were used for purposes of divination. The last-named class was condemned by the prophets (1 Samuel 15:23), and Josiah put them away with familiar spirits, and wizards and idols (2 Kings23:24). Ezekiel 21:21 describes the king of Babylon using terâphîm for divining purposes, and in connection with the shuffling of arrows and inspection of the liver of the slaughtered animal. There is no doubt that the Hebrews derived the use of the tevdphim from the inhabitants of Lower Mesopotamia, where, according to a tablet translated by Sidney Smith, the prophylactic and atropaeic figures in a house were regarded as house property, and were sold with the house.
   
3. Lechâshîm. The singular of this word lachash was applied to any object or ornament which was associated with the whispering of incantations, spells charms, prayers, etc., and which was used as an amulet. The plural is found in Isaiah 3:20 f, when the jewellery and ornaments and attire of the daughters of Jerusalem is criticized and condemned. Among the objects enumerated are ear-rings, armchains, stepping-chains, girdles, finger-rings, bracelets, armlets, scent tubes, mirrors, etc. To describe these is impossible, for no pictures of the luxurious garments and ornaments worn by rich women of the time of Isaiah are extant. Among them were certainly many lechâshîm or "amulets," and it is very probable that every article of apparel possessed an amuletic character.
4. Figures of Gods. The Babylonians, Assyrians and Egyptians all wore figures of gods as amulets. Now the Hebrews, being monotheists and worshippers of Yahweh, of whom no figure could be made, when they wished to do as the heathen did, and wear or carry into battle figures of gods as amulets, they were obliged to have recourse to heathen deities. Thus when Judas Maccabaeus and his company went out to bury the bodies of the dead with their kinsmen in their fathers' graves, they found under the coats of every one that was slain "things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which was forbidden to the Jews by the Law." Judas decided that "this was the cause wherefore they were slain " (2 Maccabeus 12:39, 40). The Philistines apparently carried figures of their gods with their army when they went forth to fight, but when David defeated them at Baal-perazim they dropped them and fled, and David ordered them to be burned with fire (1 Chronicles 14:12).
5. Tôtâphôt, or Phylacteries, i.e. frontlet bands which were worn between the eyes; see Exodus 13:9, 16; Deuteronomy 6:8; 11:18. They were made of skin of some sort and were inscribed with special formulas, e.g. "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God [is] one Lord : And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might" (Deuteronomy 6:4, 5). Fillets or bandlets thus inscribed were to be worn either between the eyes or on the hand.
6. Mezûzâh. This word means a "gate-post" or a "door-post" and was given to a strip of leather which was inscribed with the verses from Deuteronomy quoted above, and then attached to the door-post of the house. See Deuteronomy 6:9; 11:20.
   
7. The Tzîtzît or "tassel," or "lock" [of hair], or "fringe." This was made like the phylactery and mezûzâh by Divine Command: And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, "Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue" (Numbers 15:38). "Thou shalt make three fringes upon the four quarters (or wings) of thy vesture wherewith thou coverest thyself" (Deuteronomy 22:12). There is no doubt that the Tôtâphôt, Mezûzâh and the Tzîtzît were amulets, and that the use of them goes back into prehistoric times. Originally the Tôtâphôt were precious stones which invariably possessed the power of driving away evil spirits, and therefore had no need of inscriptions.

--E.A. Wallis-Budge (Amulets and Talismans)

 

[Ben Masada]

Matthew 5:19 (Young's Literal Translation)


19`Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands -- the least -- and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach [them], he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.

Matthew 5:19 (Worldwide English (New Testament))


19So anyone who does not obey one of the smallest laws, and teaches other people not to obey it, will have the smallest part in the kingdom of heaven. But any one who obeys and teaches the law, will have a big part in the kingdom of heaven.

etc.

This does not say Jesus in an orthodox Jew....
get a grip.

Again this is YOUR assumption. In fact it is MORE LIKELY he was NOT an Orthodox Jew

rereading your missive, you are aware there were many groups of "Jews" back then... you jump from orthodox to relgious. I would frankly agree he was religious, but not orthodox, as in Hasidic or similar.... or frankly one of the several religious groups that has survived to be called a Jew now....

Where did you get the term "Orthodox" from? I don't recall to have mentioned it. I always say that Jesus was a religious Jew, as the term Orthodox was unknown then.