Do you think that God added to the teachings of Jesus after His Ascencion?

[Longfellow]

Do you think that the authors of the epistles and the Apocalypse, and/or some other authors and councils, were inspired by God with teachings that were not taught by Jesus? I don't mean contradicting what He taught. I mean, not included in what He taught. Do you think that Jesus left some things unsaid, for others to be inspired by God to say later?

 

[Longfellow]

If I'm understanding correctly, Orthodox churches teach that some teachings of Jesus that are not in the gospels were passed down from the apostles, to be revealed later.

 

[Clear]

Hi Longfellow

Longfellow asked: “Do you think that the authors of the epistles and the Apocalypse, and/or some other authors and councils, were inspired by God with teachings that were not taught by Jesus? I don't mean contradicting what He taught. I mean, not included in what He taught. Do you think that Jesus left some things unsaid, for others to be inspired by God to say later?”

Longfellow, the more I consider your question, the more profoundly important it seems..

1) IS THE SPIRIT OF GOD A SOURCE OF TRUTH INDEPENDENT OF JESUS' WRITTEN WORDS?

Yes, I think all individuals are able to ask God for guidance and receive it, independent of any book or writings.

For example, Biblical Acts chapter 10 gives us the pattern.

Cornelius, the centurion sees a vision where he is instructed to send for the apostle Peter. Cornelius did not receive this revealed information from anything Jesus said nor did he read it in any book but was given this instruction by God himself.

At the same time, Peter is on the roof, receiving his own revelation regarding unclean animals which he is commanded to eat, in violation of rabbinic dietary laws. He is taught thereby that whatever God makes clean, is clean, including non-Jews. Peter, like Cornelius did not receive this information from Jesus or from any text he read, but was given this instruction from God, himself.

We don’t know much about what other prophets such as Abagus, or Phillips daughters, but the early Christians such as Perpetua, in her diary report such personal revelations to individuals continued even in her day (approx 200 a.d.) in evidence of the promise in Acts 2:17 that “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”

This pattern is, (as far as I am able to tell), a pattern that holds true for each of us in all ages of time.
All have the privilege of approaching God and have faith that they will be or can learn to be led by the spirit.

This pattern was not simply Christian, but it was Jewish as well. For example, multiple Dead Sea Scroll documents (1QS, 4Q255, 5Q11 Col 4) relate this principle, saying: “Like purifying waters, He shall sprinkle each with a spirit of truth, effectual against all the abominations of lying and sullying by an unclean spirit. Thereby He shall give the upright insight into the knowledge of the Most High and the wisdom of the angels, making wise those following the perfect way. “

IF, someone claims to be guided by the spirit, then they will, by definition, have manifestations of that spirit in their lives.

 

[Longfellow]

Hi Longfellow

Longfellow asked: “Do you think that the authors of the epistles and the Apocalypse, and/or some other authors and councils, were inspired by God with teachings that were not taught by Jesus? I don't mean contradicting what He taught. I mean, not included in what He taught. Do you think that Jesus left some things unsaid, for others to be inspired by God to say later?”

Longfellow, the more I consider your question, the more profoundly important it seems..

1) IS THE SPIRIT OF GOD A SOURCE OF TRUTH INDEPENDENT OF JESUS' WRITTEN WORDS?

Yes, I think all individuals are able to ask God for guidance and receive it, independent of any book or writings.

For example, Biblical Acts chapter 10 gives us the pattern.

Cornelius, the centurion sees a vision where he is instructed to send for the apostle Peter. Cornelius did not receive this revealed information from anything Jesus said nor did he read it in any book but was given this instruction by God himself.

At the same time, Peter is on the roof, receiving his own revelation regarding unclean animals which he is commanded to eat, in violation of rabbinic dietary laws. He is taught thereby that whatever God makes clean, is clean, including non-Jews. Peter, like Cornelius did not receive this information from Jesus or from any text he read, but was given this instruction from God, himself.

We don’t know much about what other prophets such as Abagus, or Phillips daughters, but the early Christians such as Perpetua, in her diary report such personal revelations to individuals continued even in her day (approx 200 a.d.) in evidence of the promise in Acts 2:17 that “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”

This pattern is, (as far as I am able to tell), a pattern that holds true for each of us in all ages of time.
All have the privilege of approaching God and have faith that they will be or can learn to be led by the spirit.

This pattern was not simply Christian, but it was Jewish as well. For example, multiple Dead Sea Scroll documents (1QS, 4Q255, 5Q11 Col 4) relate this principle, saying: “Like purifying waters, He shall sprinkle each with a spirit of truth, effectual against all the abominations of lying and sullying by an unclean spirit. Thereby He shall give the upright insight into the knowledge of the Most High and the wisdom of the angels, making wise those following the perfect way. “

IF, someone claims to be guided by the spirit, then they will, by definition, have manifestations of that spirit in their lives.

Thank you. What I'm wondering about is, do people think that apart from the Bible, do people think that God has revealed knowledge to others after that, not only for them personally, but for all people? That might seem false almost by definition, but it seems to me to be implied for example in the idea of councils as doctrinal authorities, or in church tradition having the same authority as the scriptures, or even more.

 

[Longfellow]

I think that I need to clarify my question. Do you think that church tradition, councils or some other sources have been inspired by God to teach people things that they need to know from God, that they can't learn from reading the Bible?

 

[Dhammañāṇa Bhikkhu]

Just in general: People who do not respectable relay in dependency on a teacher of a lineage, if taking on a certain religion/bond (useful or not) tend to add and remove what ever, so that all fit's fine to their own ideas and what ever defilement desires.

It's total useless if "disciples" gather and try to batch their stuff under others flag.

It's of course natural that those hardly ever find re-legion. A wheel, or say interfate.

A wise seeks out for Hans, not for Hänschen.

On the specific tradition: it's certain that it has no original body, nor ways of maintaining such given, or long times lost.

But to find out yourself, one would need to leave common life and try to find the recluse ways of the tradition, or one of the already countless "updates".

 

[Thomas]

I think that I need to clarify my question. Do you think that church tradition, councils or some other sources have been inspired by God to teach people things that they need to know from God, that they can't learn from reading the Bible?

Oh, for sure.

 

[Thomas]

Do you think that the authors of the epistles and the Apocalypse, and/or some other authors and councils, were inspired by God with teachings that were not taught by Jesus?

I think we have to break that down ...

Do you think that Jesus left some things unsaid, for others to be inspired by God to say later?

I think we can pretty much rely on the idea that there was.

John 21:25 "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written."

 

[Thomas]

Jesus lived, taught and did things which inspired those around him.

The Four Gospels are not simply a biography of the 'Historical Jesus' – they are not so much the story of Jesus, as a story of a coming-to-terms with what Jesus' words and actions inspired in them.

So each Gospel is, in a sense, 'this is how Jesus struck me, this is how I understand him.'

 

[Thomas]

There's an advert of Ken Follett's aimed at authors, "Everybody has a story, what makes a novelist is sitting down and writing it."

To which I could paraphrase, "Everybody has a gospel, what makes an evangelist ..."

By which I mean the Gospels, and the New Testament, invite the reader into forming a relationship with Jesus, not simply that of an engagement with an historical personage who dies 2,000 years ago, but a live engagement with the Living God.

In Luke, immediately after the news of the Resurrection is conveyed to the apostles (24:1-12), the story jumps, verse 13 opens "And look:" (the Hart translation is much better here, than the usual 'and behold'). What follows is a story of two of them travelling to Emmaus. Jesus walks and talks with them. They tell him of their journey in discipleship, their faith in one whom they "were hoping he was the one about to liberate Israel" (v21) but all they had was the news that he lives, but he is not there, just an empty tomb (v23-24).
Jesus then begins to instruct them, but still they don't know Him, until He breaks bread with them (v30, clearly a eucharistic reference), and their eyes are opened ... " (v31).

There are two travellers. One of them is named Cleopas. The other is anonymous, which seems amazing, bearing in mind they then return to Jerusalem and relay their experience of the Risen Christ to the apostles ...

... the point being, that second person is un-named because it is an invitation for you and I and everyone to be that person. To have that experience.

In a sense, that what the Gospel writers did. A Gospel is the author's take on things.

 

[Thomas]

Another example.

@badger and I have different views about the Gospel of Mark. And at one point, I think I disagreed about the reading of 14:51-52:
"And a certain young man, wearing a linen garment over his bare flesh, followed along with him, and they [the young men] seize him forcibly; and he, leaving the linen garment behind, fled away naked."
@badger is of the opinion that the young man is the author of the Gospel, whom I, following scholars, think is John-Mark (can't remember who @badger thinks he is)... whoever, a thread I picked up from the substack of Addison Hodges Hart makes the point that the Greek for 'young man' νεανίσκος 'neaniskos' makes two appearances in that Gospel.

Leaving aside disputes about identity, let us for the sake of discussion call him Neaniskos.

Neaniskos' rather mysterious appearance is in the moment of high drama at the arrest of Jesus at Gethsemane. All the more mysterious because he's described simply as wearing just a single linen garment, and running away naked. Neaniskos is a follower of Jesus, a disciple, one who has been baptised, and one who, like the other disciples, runs away when Jesus is arrested.

He appears again, however, at the close of the Gospel, and if we take the original ending to be at 16:8 (not 16:20), then it is our Neaniskos who has the last word:
"And entering the tomb they saw a young man (neaniskos) sitting to the right, clothed in a white robe, and they were amazed. But he says to them, "Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look: the place where they laid him. But go tell his disciples and Peter that he precedes you into Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you." (v5-7).

Hart regards the neaniskos, rather than an anonymous self-reference by the author, as a literary device, a 'type' a figure interpreted allegorically, signifying the reborn disciple, re-clothed and sitting at the right – note the significance placement; Jesus is clothed in white at the Transfiguration, and sits at the right hand of the Father.

We are Neaniskos if we, like the early Christian, identify with Jesus both in his death and in his resurrection. Neaniskos has died to the world and is risen with and united to Christ, hidden in the Mystery of God, "the hidden human being of the heart, in that incorruptible reality of the gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's eyes is something very precious." (1 Peter 3:4).

We are Neaniskos then when we realize in ourselves the divine life, the divine nature, that Jesus reveals to and gifts. Death, St Paul taunts the devil, "where is thy sting?" (1 Corinthians 15:55) because it has become no longer something feared; it is not the end. The disciple has already died: "by baptism into death we were buried with him" (Rom. 6:4) – we have realised the baptism of the cross which Jesus undertook for all.

+++

What I'm trying to get to get to is, what is offered us is not a divine teaching, nor even a divine way of living, but divine life.

 

[Clear]

Longfellow clarified: “I think that I need to clarify my question. Do you think that church tradition, councils or some other sources have been inspired by God to teach people things that they need to know from God, that they can't learn from reading the Bible?”


1) INDIVIDUALS WHO RECEIVE REVELATION ARE COMMON WHILE EN-MASSE EQUAL INSPIRATION OF COUNCILS IS RARE
My tentative model is that, while individual revelation/inspiration from the spirit of God is common place (though it seems to be given in discrete and specific insights), it is it is difficult for me to move beyond the very common individual, discrete, and, specific inspiration, to a rare "pentecostal-like", en-masse phenomenon, where any large group of individuals (i.e. church councils in the 4th centuries) are actually inspired equally and upon the same specific subject.


2) RECOGNIZING INSPIRATION IN ANOTHER PERSON MAY SOMETIMES REQUIRE US TO BE INSPIRED
I also think that recognizing inspiration from God to another person generally requires some degree of personal inspiration.

Thus, while many, many, many individuals may receive specific and discrete inspirations (some of which may simply feel like “ah ha!” moments or simply a “great idea” that came to our minds spontaneously and thus go unrecognized), I think often the common, but specific inspirations often go unrecognized for what they are. And another person, upon being told this inspiration by another, may not recognize it as revelation either.


3) WHY WE OFTEN DO NOT RECOGNIZE INSPIRATION/REVELATION WE ENCOUNTER
Clement (in recognitions) described being taught by the Apostle Peter regarding why such revelations from other individuals and prophets and other Christians may not be recognized for what it is.

Peter taught Clement: "The will and Counsel of God has, for many reasons been concealed from men: first, indeed, through bad instruction, wicked associations, evil habits, unprofitable conversation, and unrighteous presumptions. On account of all these, I say, first error, then contempt, then infidelity and malice, covetousness also, and vain boasting, and other such like evils, have filled the whole house of this world, like some enormous smoke, and preventing those who dwell in it from seeing its Founder aright, and from perceiving what things are pleasing to Him.

What, then, is fitting for those who are within, excepting with a cry brought forth from their inmost hearts to invoke His aid, who alone is not shut up in the smoke-filled house, that He would approach and open the door of the house, so that the smoke may be dissipated which is within, and the light of the sun which shines without may be admitted. (chapt 15)



4) DID GOD OFFER TORAH (THE GOSPEL) WITH IT'S BLESSINGS TO ALL NATIONS IN THE VERY BEGINNING?
I expect that, as "no respecter of persons", God offers and is willing to provide personal inspiration/revelation to ALL individuals equally based on their desires, willingness and ability to receive inspiration/revelations.

For example, in the Jewish Midrash Sifri, Deuteronomy (343) the Jewish tradition is explained that the Torah (i.e. the Gospel) was offered to all nations and not just the Jews.

"When the L-rd appeared to give Torah to Israel, it is not to Israel alone that He appeared, but to all of the nations. First He went to the children of Esav, and He asked them: Will you accept the Torah? … He then went to the children of Ammon and Moav and asked them: Will you accept the Torah? …He then went and found the children of Yishmael and asked them: Will you accept the Torah? …Israel accepted the Torah.” Etc.

While this Midrash explains all other nations rejected the gospel, I do not see any reason to believe this. However, it is a good base model for why so many ethical and moral parallels to Judeo-Christianity exist in other cultures.

I expect that there were individuals from all nations who were inspired by the spirit of God to greater and lesser degrees. What we are, typically, exposed to is a modern, western, Judeo-Christian version of the gospel while others may be exposed to Confucius or Buddhism having similar ethical codes of behavior.



5) DID, AND DOES, GOD GIVE PERSONAL REVELATION TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS BESIDES JUDEO-CHRISTIANS?

I see no reason to believe that Christians are the only individuals who are, or can be inspired by the spirit to adopt higher moral standards (turn the other cheek, love others as you love yourself, selflessness, etc.).

For example, in syncretic 3rd Enoch, the Prophet is shown the veil of Gods presence which reveals past, present and future before God saying:

“1 Come and I will show you the curtain of the Omnipresent One, which is spread before the holy One, blessed be he and on which are printed all the generations of the world and all their deeds, whether done or to be done, till the last generation. 2 I went and he showed them to me with his fingers, like a father teaching his son the letters of the Torah: and I saw each generation and its potentiates, ...3...and I saw Adam and his generation, their deeds and their thoughts; Noah and the generation of the flood, their deeds and their thoughts;....Abraham and his generation, their deeds and their thoughts......the teachers of the children in Israel and their generations, their deeds and their acts; the teachers of the children of the gentiles and their generations, their deeds and their acts;...all the prophets of Israel and their generations, their deeds and their acts; all the prophets of the gentiles and their generations, their deeds and their acts...And I saw: the Messiah the son of Joseph and his generation, and all that they will do to the gentiles..... (45:1-5)


The point here is that the Judeo-Christians believed both Israel AND the gentiles would have inspired prophets and other individuals among them.

I do not see any reason why this ancient Judeo-Christian model is in error, but instead, it seems more fair to me that God operated among all nations and people to some degree (usually the degree to which they, as individuals, will allow).

In any case Longfellow, good luck coming to your own models as to how a just God operates and effects his will upon individuals in all ages of the world.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

The scope of your question is clearly Christian, but you posted it on a general thread, so I post my answer - briefly without sources cause I am quite busy with many things now.

1. God inspired all believers who trust in God. The path of the believer is guided by God.
2. The inspiration is based on the knowledge of the Word of the Messengers (p.b.u.th) , which serves as a base, our experience, the reflection of it we bring before God and the answer that comes to our minds in dialogue.
3. We believe that there has been an important messenger after Jesus (p.b.u.h), Muhammad (p.b.u.h).
4. A Messenger is inspired also the same way as we are, but he received the message (in his inner dialogue) that he is supposed to bring out the Word he received to a great public, that it be known, received and considered.
5. Islam does not recognise Paul (a.s.) or the disciples (a.s) as messengers. This doesn't mean that they were not inspired or disqualify them as liars. Christians may see it differently.
6. I personally don't believe that any human can receive the absolute truth forever. That's not an Islamic teaching, rather dissident. As Paul (!) said: inquire everything and keep the good.

 

[badger]

Another example.

@badger and I have different views about the Gospel of Mark. And at one point, I think I disagreed about the reading of 14:51-52:
"And a certain young man, wearing a linen garment over his bare flesh, followed along with him, and they [the young men] seize him forcibly; and he, leaving the linen garment behind, fled away naked."
@badger is of the opinion that the young man is the author of the Gospel, whom I, following scholars, think is John-Mark (can't remember who @badger thinks he is)... whoever, a thread I picked up from the substack of Addison Hodges Hart makes the point that the Greek for 'young man' νεανίσκος 'neaniskos' makes two appearances in that Gospel.

Yes, we do. Now the scholars do not know the name of the author, but whatever his name was I think he had to have been the young man who escaped because only the young chasers and he would have been able to remember the experience, and they would probably have sooner forgot their fail. Everybody else was attending to something else at that time.

Leaving aside disputes about identity, let us for the sake of discussion call him Neaniskos.

Why? 'Young man' is accurate.

Neaniskos' rather mysterious appearance is in the moment of high drama at the arrest of Jesus at Gethsemane. All the more mysterious because he's described simply as wearing just a single linen garment, and running away naked. Neaniskos is a follower of Jesus, a disciple, one who has been baptised, and one who, like the other disciples, runs away when Jesus is arrested.

Not mysterious at all. He was one of the followers. We do not know if he had been immersed...he might have been.

He appears again, however, at the close of the Gospel, and if we take the original ending to be at 16:8 (not 16:20), then it is our Neaniskos who has the last word:
"And entering the tomb they saw a young man (neaniskos) sitting to the right, clothed in a white robe, and they were amazed. But he says to them, "Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look: the place where they laid him. But go tell his disciples and Peter that he precedes you into Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you." (v5-7).

Thousands of people were young men and we can't know if the young man at the tomb was the runner.

Hart regards the neaniskos, rather than an anonymous self-reference by the author, as a literary device, a 'type' a figure interpreted allegorically, signifying the reborn disciple, re-clothed and sitting at the right – note the significance placement; Jesus is clothed in white at the Transfiguration, and sits at the right hand of the Father.

At this point you are leaving the temporal for a spiritual flight of fancy, that's ok if you want to imagine that to be the real situation but I would indeed prefer to read the transfiguration account as having happened in natural circumstances.

We are Neaniskos if we, like the early Christian, identify with Jesus both in his death and in his resurrection. Neaniskos has died to the world and is risen with and united to Christ, hidden in the Mystery of God, "the hidden human being of the heart, in that incorruptible reality of the gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's eyes is something very precious." (1 Peter 3:4).

I have to allow the conversation to carry on from here because I am a non-theistic Deist.

We are Neaniskos then when we realize in ourselves the divine life, the divine nature, that Jesus reveals to and gifts. Death, St Paul taunts the devil, "where is thy sting?" (1 Corinthians 15:55) because it has become no longer something feared; it is not the end. The disciple has already died: "by baptism into death we were buried with him" (Rom. 6:4) – we have realised the baptism of the cross which Jesus undertook for all.

+++

What I'm trying to get to get to is, what is offered us is not a divine teaching, nor even a divine way of living, but divine life.

Again, I acknowledge your faith.

 

[Longfellow]

What I'm trying to get to get to is, what is offered us is not a divine teaching, nor even a divine way of living, but divine life.

Faith without works is dead.

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"

 

[Longfellow]

In my understanding, calling Him "Lord," "Master," "God" and "Son of God," is nothing but empty words, and not at all the faith that comes by grace, if it doesn't mean service and obedience to Him, inspired by seeing God in Him.

 

[Longfellow]

To put it another way, in my understanding, if it isn’t understood as service and obedience to Him, inspired by seeing God in Him it’s missing the whole point of those names and titles.

 

[Thomas]

I think that I need to clarify my question. Do you think that church tradition, councils ... have been inspired by God to teach people things that they need to know from God, that they can't learn from reading the Bible?

A more complete answer, following my post #7.

Church Tradition
The early Christian community was first and foremost a Liturgical Church. There is nothing in the Bible about how to perform a particularly Christian liturgy, but the first believers were Jews and attended synagogue as well as their own Christian-oriented liturgical gatherings – central to which was the Eucharist (as biblically-founded).

So the Church was a Liturgical Church, and the teachings offered in the Liturgies form the backbone of the Tradition that produced the Gospels, so the Gospels were the last in that series – or put another way, the Gospels are founded on the teachings of the Church, and the subsequent teaching of the Church is founded on the Gospels – so there is a harmony there between Liturgy, Tradition and Scripture.

Church Councils
As @Clear says, and I quite agree, a Council may well arrive at an inspired determination, but whether that is visible or not is a matter of individual discernment. Certainly an inspired council does not necessarily mean universal agreement, as I don't think there ever was a Council in which all parties were absolutely agreed.

I hold the Council of Chalcedon (451) as inspired in its final declaration on the nature of Christ, but this did not prevent a schism in the Church. I think Vatican II was inspired, but was undermined.

Famously, when the Tome of Leo was read out – a letter from Pope Leo I, 'Leo the Great' – addressing issues raised in the church, the Bishops cried out: "This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the Fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus (there was a heretical synod there)? These are the things Dioscorus hid away."
Which sounds wonderful, but this was just the vociferous orthodox party, and not all bishops were in agreement, and nothing was immediately resolved ....

... or some other sources have been inspired by God to teach people things that they need to know from God, that they can't learn from reading the Bible?

Well my learning concerning what the Bible says is an ongoing dynamic. That stream springs eternal. Anyone who thinks they've read the Bible and got it, done and dusted, they're looking at a dry well.

But, again as @Clear has said, God teaches people things through many and diverse means as He so chooses, and often we might "entertain angels unawares" (Hebrews 13:12) – the veracity of such experience is a matter of individual discernment, and at the end of the day, people choose to believe what they choose to believe.

 

[Thomas]

... whatever his name was I think he had to have been the young man who escaped because only the young chasers and he would have been able to remember the experience, and they would probably have sooner forgot their fail. Everybody else was attending to something else at that time.

I think had the author thought it was important, he would have named the man. That he did not, in the context of the literature of the day, says rather a lot, I think. (Names were important.)

I regard this Gospel, like the others, as following the norms of classical literature of their day – scholars have done a great deal of work in this area – biographies of the time had no firms borders that are required today. Hence I rather tend to view this incident as a literary device.

Why? 'Young man' is accurate.

As a highlight.

Not mysterious at all. He was one of the followers. We do not know if he had been immersed...he might have been.

Mysterious in the sense of why does he pop up now? What were the other disciples doing? What were the other followers doing? Why was he only wearing 'a linen cloth' – I know some say 'sleeping robe' but Strong's emphasis is different.

Also, the Greek term sindon appears only five times in the NT, twice here (Mark 14:51-52), the other three all refer to the cloth used to dress Jesus when they took his body from the cross (Mark 15:46, Matthew 27:59, Luke 23:53).

And the big question is – why mention it at all?

 

[badger]

I think had the author thought it was important, he would have named the man. That he did not, in the context of the literature of the day, says rather a lot, I think. (Names were important.)

I really do think that this incident was so traumatic and experience for the author that he made mention of it. If it had happened to you I think that it would have been sharp in your memory as well.

I regard this Gospel, like the others, as following the norms of classical literature of their day – scholars have done a great deal of work in this area – biographies of the time had no firms borders that are required today. Hence I rather tend to view this incident as a literary device.

Surely you do not think that this gospel was written by an experienced story-telling literary author?
I think it was written by a determined follower with basic literary skills.

As a highlight.

The problem with adding such frills and then trying to connect them to other parts of the story and underpinning this technique by pointing out that it was the whim of a scholar..... is not true investigation.

Mysterious in the sense of why does he pop up now? What were the other disciples doing? What were the other followers doing? Why was he only wearing 'a linen cloth' – I know some say 'sleeping robe' but Strong's emphasis is different.

Because it happened, a memory so traumatic that the author made mention of it. If it had not been exactly this then your 'why?' question would be much stronger.

Also, the Greek term sindon appears only five times in the NT, twice here (Mark 14:51-52), the other three all refer to the cloth used to dress Jesus when they took his body from the cross (Mark 15:46, Matthew 27:59, Luke 23:53).

I expect that many people could only afford one such shroud to wrap and tie around, and the idea of shrouding the body of a common criminal (that's how he was seen at the time) is more worrying than that a young man covered himself this. I really do expect that most convicts were slaughtered in front of a crowd and then chucked in a ditch.

And the big question is – why mention it at all?

Again..... if that had happened to you and you had written that account then you took would probably have mentioned it.