Was the Gospel of Mark adjusted by Christians?

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,468
Reaction score
2,683
Points
108
I wonder who reported all these things... ?
Well, in the first instance Mark. But where did Mark get his information from, if not the oral tradition that would have flowed from the witnesses?

Psalm 22, so similar ....
Which is addressed in ChIII para12 of DV: "the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended."

So yes! Why did Mark use Psalm 22 here, what was his point?
 

Leveller

Well-Known Member
Messages
156
Reaction score
136
Points
43
Location
London
That Jesus was always regarded as a spiritual teacher is too basic to argue, imo. Any other conclusion can only be reached by using it as a starting point, and then tossing out whatever from the Gospels does not suit the theory. People don't feel the need constantly to minimize the Buddha or other great spiritual figures.

I can only imagine how frustrating and perhaps hurtful this may be for many Christians. To be honest, Christianity, or at least as I perceived it in my younger days, is a lot to blame for this. Many of those that I met and those that I now see online go on about conception/birth and death/resurrection. There is little in between other than the odd miracle. Nobody else does this certainly not Buddhists.
It is only now, and partly due to this forum that I am beginning to see that he had something to say and it may be both profound and important. It is too soon for me to go further. So please, feel free to labour the point.

Sorry to sidetrack the conversation @badger.
 

'Amir Alzzalam

Šayṭānist
Messages
528
Reaction score
178
Points
43
I simply see all of this as, when you make stuff up you run the risk of having to remember everything you made up and that's where things get convoluted. When several people add to the story (i.e. Chinese Whisper Game) the story becomes even more distorted and more difficult to hold together. Eventually, you end up with a story containing many holes in the plot and various dead ends in the script. This is how I see what happened to the various Christian scriptures and their editing into the accepted and abridged Vulgate.
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
If Christ returned today I think he'd have a lot to say to the fundamentalist evangelicals and their wealthy self-proclaimed pastors -- and it wouldn't be what they expect to hear from him, lol
 

Leveller

Well-Known Member
Messages
156
Reaction score
136
Points
43
Location
London
If Christ returned today I think he'd have a lot to say to the fundamentalist evangelicals and their wealthy self-proclaimed pastors -- and it wouldn't be what they expect to hear from him, lol
Funny you should say that. I was thinking along similar lines yesterday. I had by chance found this awful video.
If you look at the comments there is one about money by a Brigit Giordano. Then she has lots of replies, about making money, all presumably from people who were there to watch a Christian video.
Quite nauseating.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
My belief is Catholic I believe in the spirit of the text, not necessarily the letter.

The Catholic position is stated firstly in Dei Verbum, one of the four constitutional documents of the Church, formulated at Vatican II in 1965.

What follows are extracts from Chapter III: Sacred Scripture, its Divine Interpretation and Interpretation

"... the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text)."
Para 11. My emphasis: the point here being not the literal word, but rather the point and purpose of the writing. The Church has long accepted that not every literal word is true.
I can accept it, when a person tells me what they believe and how they accept or reject the words of the gospels.
My belief is in Deism and this gives me the freedom and the privilege to accept or reject the words of the gospels as an individual.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
Well, in the first instance Mark. But where did Mark get his information from, if not the oral tradition that would have flowed from the witnesses?

Which is addressed in ChIII para12 of DV: "the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended."

So yes! Why did Mark use Psalm 22 here, what was his point?
Mark had witnesses? But in your next paragraph, you mention that Mark used Psalm 22 there, and that he had a point.
Now do you think that the author of Mark wrote down what folks witnessed, or how he used a Psalm in making a point?

Which?
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
how he used a Psalm in making a point?
The prophecy of the suffering messiah fulfilled ... consciously fulfilled by Jesus
Funny you should say that. I was thinking along similar lines yesterday. I had by chance found this awful video.
If you look at the comments there is one about money by a Brigit Giordano. Then she has lots of replies, about making money, all presumably from people who were there to watch a Christian video.
Quite nauseating.
Saved to watch later
 
Last edited:

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,468
Reaction score
2,683
Points
108
Now do you think that the author of Mark wrote down what folks witnessed, or how he used a Psalm in making a point?
I think folks saw Christ suffer, and Mark contextualised that suffering. If you're asking whether Christ actually cried out "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" then maybe He did, or maybe He didn't ... but the sentiment would have been the same, and He expressed as much elsewhere.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
I think folks saw Christ suffer, and Mark contextualised that suffering. If you're asking whether Christ actually cried out "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" then maybe He did, or maybe He didn't ... but the sentiment would have been the same, and He expressed as much elsewhere.
The way I see it, folks saw Jesus suffer, from afar
 

'Amir Alzzalam

Šayṭānist
Messages
528
Reaction score
178
Points
43
Funny you should say that. I was thinking along similar lines yesterday. I had by chance found this awful video.
If you look at the comments there is one about money by a Brigit Giordano. Then she has lots of replies, about making money, all presumably from people who were there to watch a Christian video.
Quite nauseating.
What a wingnut LOL . . . 2022 and these stupid Christians still don't understand their own scripture. There is NO Lucifer in their bible, there are NO Luciferians that recognize Christianity as something real much less Luciferians that want to 'attack' them in any way, shape, or form.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
I think folks saw Christ suffer, and Mark contextualised that suffering. If you're asking whether Christ actually cried out "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" then maybe He did, or maybe He didn't ... but the sentiment would have been the same, and He expressed as much elsewhere.

And so, the author of G-Mark adjusted the account to express sentiment and a kind of spiritual message? Is that correct?

This thread is titled 'Was the Gospel of Mark adjusted by Christians?'. Do you suggest that it was....adjusted?
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
This thread is titled 'Was the Gospel of Mark adjusted by Christians?'. Do you suggest that it was....adjusted?
Why would a Christian writer want God to forsake Jesus on the cross? It's the opposite of what a Christian writer would want to convey, imo

It's a cryptic passage
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
Why would a Christian writer want God to forsake Jesus on the cross? It's the opposite of what a Christian writer would want to convey, imo

It's a cryptic passage
I was answering post 129
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
I was answering post 129
I was answering your question in an open forum.

By taking on the suffering of all men, Christ shares also the suffering of those who feel abandoned by God, imo
 
Last edited:

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
I was answering your question in an open forum.

By taking on the suffering of all men, Chrust shares also the suffering of those who feel abandoned by God, imo

So..... can I ask you as well...
Did the author of G-Mark adjust the account to express sentiment and a kind of spiritual message?

This thread is titled 'Was the Gospel of Mark adjusted by Christians?'. Do you suggest that it was....adjusted?
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
So..... can I ask you as well...
Did the author of G-Mark adjust the account to express sentiment and a kind of spiritual message?
If so, I can see no reason that 'God, why have you forsaken me' should be a part of the adjustment. Apart from the reference to psalm 22, which is only one speculative interpretation of the words -- it would seem to work against the whole intention of Christ as the Son. Why would the Father abandon him? Why would a Christian writer put that in? He would be more likely to want to take it out?
 
Last edited:

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
Allowing a bit of poetic liberty in the case of perhaps exaggerated numbers when feeding the 5000 and so on, it is necessary to show by real evidence where Christian writers have altered the document -- and this needs more than just not thinking it fits with what I believe Jesus said and did?
 
Last edited:

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
If so, I can see no reason that 'God, why have you forsaken me' should be a part of the adjustment. Apart from the reference to psalm 22, which is only one speculative interpretation of the words -- it would seem to work against the whole intention of Christ as the Son. Why would the Father abandon him? Why would a Christian writer put that in? He would be more likely to want to take it out?
Yes. Absolutely.
I've often wondered why/how some verses survived.
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,468
Reaction score
2,683
Points
108
And so, the author of G-Mark adjusted the account to express sentiment and a kind of spiritual message? Is that correct?
I rather think you're looking at it the wrong way.

Mark is writing an account of how Jesus fulfils the prophecies made to Israel (Mark 1:1-3). The author takes elements from oral and liturgical tradition, and orders them in such a manner as to convey that message. He calls it a 'gospel' – the Greek is euangelion, meaning 'good news' or 'glad tidings'. In a Christian context the term was understood as the preaching of Jesus Christ as having suffered death to procure salvation and thus the coming of the kingdom of God.

Like the other gospel writers, he orders the elements of Jesus' history into a narrative. Does he write them in the order in which they occurred? Maybe, maybe not – that's not his purpose.

But here the point is that Mark uses OT prophecy to support his gospel, here as elsewhere (he opens with Isaiah). The use of Psalm 22, not just Jesus' cry, but the dividing of his garments (v18-19) it is used to highlight Jesus' suffering, and our suffering, but in the end it is triumphant. So the inclusion is a pointer – 'read the Psalm and that will educate you in regard to what is happening here'.

This thread is titled 'Was the Gospel of Mark adjusted by Christians?'. Do you suggest that it was....adjusted?
AFAIK the only points of contention is the 'Son of God' in the first verse, and Chapter 16, verse 9 on, which are missing from some early manuscripts, but that is well known, well attested, and inconclusive. So if you want to call that 'adjustment', then OK, but then the point is, what's your point, we all know that?

If you want to make the point that all or more of it has been adjusted, then that's an uphill climb.
 
Last edited:
Top