Gospel of mark, Gospel

[TimothysAlaska]

The New Testament as in the Kings james version. The ending 16:9-16:20 was added to better fit the other gospels. In the original it ended at 16:8 and the women went away fearful and amazed from the tomb and told no one. Yet the ending was indeed changed as the years went by and the oldest version of mark never has the current ending that is in the king James version. And it is an apparent edit the prose is wrong and words are used that the original author never used. The New Testament has other "edits". I realize most of you believe that the gospel was written by divine inspiration but it is obvious that it was changed to fit the doctrine. It appears to had been added in the 4th century. So they were inspired to change it close to 400 years after?

And since it was changed why is not the gospel of judas not included? It was found and it was just as old as the other gospels yet the gospel of mark is the oldest?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Biggest most obvious edit being the fact that the order of the gospels in the NT was arbitrarily decided upon. The early Church was trying to make it into a linear story. As with Revelations as the end. And of course not everything extant at the time was included, much was excluded not because it wasn't true but it didn't make for as good a story.

 

[HaShev]

Words were changed, meanings were changed & redefined to fit deceptions, words were redefined by ignorance of their meaning or Hebrew translations.
Words were changed through transliteration errors, translations to meaning instead of keeping names entact is why the bible said The Name would be blotted out. The opposite occured whereby words defining roles were translated into names thus making a figure out of a term thus anthropromorphizing a mere term.
Books were hidden & burned, verses and chapters removed, apostles squelched, no revisited opinions after the deaths & failures, those comments about failure and admissions of him not being who they hoped all removed. (In earlier copies of Luke and in Thomas).
Books were edited/changed by the great liar Eusebius including some content in Josephus. The main central source of the texts called Q was burned and wiped out and missing. But worse, all historical accuracy was ignored like the dating of the figures in the accounts, making it easy to see the character is converged of many
spaning many eras.

 

[HaShev]

The early Church was trying to make it into a linear story. As with Revelations as the end.

And like any good joke the Roman's put the punch line at the end with the admission in Rev 22:16 Jesus saying he was Lucifer-"the morning star"=Baals son, thus finally revealing
the name of the father who was one in the same mythology thus same Dec 25th birthday celebration and thus revealing the number of his name....
Baal Jesus=666 in ASCII numerology used to secret numbers from names.

 

[Meriweather]

The New Testament as in the Kings james version. The ending 16:9-16:20 was added to better fit the other gospels. In the original it ended at 16:8 and the women went away fearful and amazed from the tomb and told no one. Yet the ending was indeed changed as the years went by and the oldest version of mark never has the current ending that is in the king James version. And it is an apparent edit the prose is wrong and words are used that the original author never used. The New Testament has other "edits". I realize most of you believe that the gospel was written by divine inspiration but it is obvious that it was changed to fit the doctrine. It appears to had been added in the 4th century. So they were inspired to change it close to 400 years after?

And since it was changed why is not the gospel of judas not included? It was found and it was just as old as the other gospels yet the gospel of mark is the oldest?

Evan Powell's The Unfinished Gospel is an interesting read. He sets forth reasons why he believes at some point in the chaos of the early centuries, the true ending of Mark's Gospel got stacked with John's Gospel. He says style and pattern of writing bear this out. He thinks the ending of Mark's Gospel is included in John 21.

As far as the ancient copy of the Gospel of Judas...the Gospel of Mark was written about 70 A.D. Scientific studies of the Gospel of Judas have settled on a date of 280 A.D. Nor does it appear to have had a wide circulation. When the Council decided on canonized books, both were taken into consideration.

 

[irosie91]

The New Testament as in the Kings james version. The ending 16:9-16:20 was added to better fit the other gospels. In the original it ended at 16:8 and the women went away fearful and amazed from the tomb and told no one. Yet the ending was indeed changed as the years went by and the oldest version of mark never has the current ending that is in the king James version. And it is an apparent edit the prose is wrong and words are used that the original author never used. The New Testament has other "edits". I realize most of you believe that the gospel was written by divine inspiration but it is obvious that it was changed to fit the doctrine. It appears to had been added in the 4th century. So they were inspired to change it close to 400 years after?

And since it was changed why is not the gospel of judas not included? It was found and it was just as old as the other gospels yet the gospel of mark is the oldest?

Evan Powell's The Unfinished Gospel is an interesting read. He sets forth reasons why he believes at some point in the chaos of the early centuries, the true ending of Mark's Gospel got stacked with John's Gospel. He says style and pattern of writing bear this out. He thinks the ending of Mark's Gospel is included in John 21.

As far as the ancient copy of the Gospel of Judas...the Gospel of Mark was written about 70 A.D. Scientific studies of the Gospel of Judas have settled on a date of 280 A.D. Nor does it appear to have had a wide circulation. When the Council decided on canonized books, both were taken into consideration.

I am fascinated-----does anyone know why "JUDAS" was discarded? My personal uneducated opinion of
JOHN----is that it is a kind of catch-all------for questionable writings

 

[Meriweather]

The New Testament as in the Kings james version. The ending 16:9-16:20 was added to better fit the other gospels. In the original it ended at 16:8 and the women went away fearful and amazed from the tomb and told no one. Yet the ending was indeed changed as the years went by and the oldest version of mark never has the current ending that is in the king James version. And it is an apparent edit the prose is wrong and words are used that the original author never used. The New Testament has other "edits". I realize most of you believe that the gospel was written by divine inspiration but it is obvious that it was changed to fit the doctrine. It appears to had been added in the 4th century. So they were inspired to change it close to 400 years after?

And since it was changed why is not the gospel of judas not included? It was found and it was just as old as the other gospels yet the gospel of mark is the oldest?

Evan Powell's The Unfinished Gospel is an interesting read. He sets forth reasons why he believes at some point in the chaos of the early centuries, the true ending of Mark's Gospel got stacked with John's Gospel. He says style and pattern of writing bear this out. He thinks the ending of Mark's Gospel is included in John 21.

As far as the ancient copy of the Gospel of Judas...the Gospel of Mark was written about 70 A.D. Scientific studies of the Gospel of Judas have settled on a date of 280 A.D. Nor does it appear to have had a wide circulation. When the Council decided on canonized books, both were taken into consideration.

I am fascinated-----does anyone know why "JUDAS" was discarded? My personal uneducated opinion of
JOHN----is that it is a kind of catch-all------for questionable writings

As far as I can determine, there is no handwritten notations from the Council of Nicaea specifically saying why specific books were not included. What is known is that books formally selected were already in use by many churches, in either the original language or an original translation. Then, as now, people recognize that original meanings and intent can be lost in translations.

The Council was interested in books originally written in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic. The Council was also interested in being able to determine/trace who wrote the original version. The Gospel of Judas was originally written in Coptic (an Egyptian language) in Egypt, more than two hundred years after the death of Judas. In those days people deliberately used titles "The Gospel of Judas" to lend the work authority.

Two-hundred-plus years would be over eight generations between the death of Judas and the appearance of his Gospel. How many of us know of stories handed down, word-of-mouth, by one of our seventh-great grandparents (who lived eight generations before us)?

There was a generational story handed down to me about my great-great grandmother (who had been born in Canada and grew up speaking French). The story was that her mother hand died, and her father, unable to care for her aboard his ship, placed her in a Catholic orphanage. I had no reason to question this story. However, I had an interest in genealogy, and I thought it might be fun to see if I could find the orphanage where my great-great grandmother had been left. I found it--and also discovered that her mother had left her at the orphanage after the death of her father.

Judas was a Jew...yet this story originated in Egypt in an Egyptian language, two hundred years later, by an unknown author.

Keep in mind, just because a book did not become canon does not mean it is worthless. While I haven't been all that impressed by any of the "Lost Gospels", I've always been quite impressed by the Letters of Barnabas that had a lot more authority and were more easily traced than any of the Lost Gospels. Why Barnabas for me, and not Judas? The Gospel of Judas read more like a novel, an imaginative idea of what if, Judas thought he was obeying an order (Gospels tell us Jesus said to Judas, "What you do, do quickly). That is a great what if. I've wondered about it, and it appears, down through the ages, others have as well. I doubt if I am the only one who wonders about it today. I suspect I am one of many.

 

[TimothysAlaska]

The New Testament as in the Kings james version. The ending 16:9-16:20 was added to better fit the other gospels. In the original it ended at 16:8 and the women went away fearful and amazed from the tomb and told no one. Yet the ending was indeed changed as the years went by and the oldest version of mark never has the current ending that is in the king James version. And it is an apparent edit the prose is wrong and words are used that the original author never used. The New Testament has other "edits". I realize most of you believe that the gospel was written by divine inspiration but it is obvious that it was changed to fit the doctrine. It appears to had been added in the 4th century. So they were inspired to change it close to 400 years after?

And since it was changed why is not the gospel of judas not included? It was found and it was just as old as the other gospels yet the gospel of mark is the oldest?

Evan Powell's The Unfinished Gospel is an interesting read. He sets forth reasons why he believes at some point in the chaos of the early centuries, the true ending of Mark's Gospel got stacked with John's Gospel. He says style and pattern of writing bear this out. He thinks the ending of Mark's Gospel is included in John 21.

As far as the ancient copy of the Gospel of Judas...the Gospel of Mark was written about 70 A.D. Scientific studies of the Gospel of Judas have settled on a date of 280 A.D. Nor does it appear to have had a wide circulation. When the Council decided on canonized books, both were taken into consideration.

I am fascinated-----does anyone know why "JUDAS" was discarded? My personal uneducated opinion of
JOHN----is that it is a kind of catch-all------for questionable writings

As far as I can determine, there is no handwritten notations from the Council of Nicaea specifically saying why specific books were not included. What is known is that books formally selected were already in use by many churches, in either the original language or an original translation. Then, as now, people recognize that original meanings and intent can be lost in translations.

The Council was interested in books originally written in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic. The Council was also interested in being able to determine/trace who wrote the original version. The Gospel of Judas was originally written in Coptic (an Egyptian language) in Egypt, more than two hundred years after the death of Judas. In those days people deliberately used titles "The Gospel of Judas" to lend the work authority.

Two-hundred-plus years would be over eight generations between the death of Judas and the appearance of his Gospel. How many of us know of stories handed down, word-of-mouth, by one of our seventh-great grandparents (who lived eight generations before us)?

There was a generational story handed down to me about my great-great grandmother (who had been born in Canada and grew up speaking French). The story was that her mother hand died, and her father, unable to care for her aboard his ship, placed her in a Catholic orphanage. I had no reason to question this story. However, I had an interest in genealogy, and I thought it might be fun to see if I could find the orphanage where my great-great grandmother had been left. I found it--and also discovered that her mother had left her at the orphanage after the death of her father.

Judas was a Jew...yet this story originated in Egypt in an Egyptian language, two hundred years later, by an unknown author.

Keep in mind, just because a book did not become canon does not mean it is worthless. While I haven't been all that impressed by any of the "Lost Gospels", I've always been quite impressed by the Letters of Barnabas that had a lot more authority and were more easily traced than any of the Lost Gospels. Why Barnabas for me, and not Judas? The Gospel of Judas read more like a novel, an imaginative idea of what if, Judas thought he was obeying an order (Gospels tell us Jesus said to Judas, "What you do, do quickly). That is a great what if. I've wondered about it, and it appears, down through the ages, others have as well. I doubt if I am the only one who wonders about it today. I suspect I am one of many.

I was curious of the beginnings of the church and from what I can see it was quite divided and irregular. Not unlike today where you have various denominations and sects with differing opinions and stories but all related to the same texts. I know they had to crush some of them and bring them into the fold at the time for any of it to survive its current form
And others just faded into obscurity. But what I find interesting is how current religions all say that this is divine and this but fail to realize that it was just as fractured and argumentative as it is today. I realize faith plays a part, but I have a hard time throwing my lot with this denomination or that when all the inconsistencies and changes have occurred to a fact that it seems to fit a certain narrative. When even some of the other gnostic gospels bring a fresh air of what different people thought at the time. I find it interesting

 

[BluePhantom]

The New Testament as in the Kings james version. The ending 16:9-16:20 was added to better fit the other gospels. In the original it ended at 16:8 and the women went away fearful and amazed from the tomb and told no one. Yet the ending was indeed changed as the years went by and the oldest version of mark never has the current ending that is in the king James version. And it is an apparent edit the prose is wrong and words are used that the original author never used. The New Testament has other "edits". I realize most of you believe that the gospel was written by divine inspiration but it is obvious that it was changed to fit the doctrine. It appears to had been added in the 4th century. So they were inspired to change it close to 400 years after?

And since it was changed why is not the gospel of judas not included? It was found and it was just as old as the other gospels yet the gospel of mark is the oldest?

Many Bibles, such as the NIV for example, include a disclaimer about the ending of Mark being added later. The same is true of the story in John about the woman taken in adultery. That was added later as well but often there is a disclaimer pointing that out. The Gospel of Judas came much later (late second to third centuries where Mark was written in the mid first century) and Judas was a Gnostic text. The group that would later become the Catholics (who eventually won the struggle against the other competing sects) were not going to include a book that stood in contradiction to how they viewed things. Similar stuff can be said about the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, or the Shepherd of Hermas. They were from the competition so out they went.

 

[Meriweather]

I was curious of the beginnings of the church and from what I can see it was quite divided and irregular. Not unlike today where you have various denominations and sects with differing opinions and stories but all related to the same texts. I know they had to crush some of them and bring them into the fold at the time for any of it to survive its current form
And others just faded into obscurity. But what I find interesting is how current religions all say that this is divine and this but fail to realize that it was just as fractured and argumentative as it is today. I realize faith plays a part, but I have a hard time throwing my lot with this denomination or that when all the inconsistencies and changes have occurred to a fact that it seems to fit a certain narrative. When even some of the other gnostic gospels bring a fresh air of what different people thought at the time. I find it interesting

In reading the history between the Gnostics and early Christians, I wouldn't categorize it as one crushing the other, but rather as one fading back, when most followed/agreed with the opposing side.

On one side were the Gnostics, which was the older religion. Christianity brought in new ideas/possibilities. Instead of everyone leaving their original religion (Gnosticism) and rushing to Christianity, Gnostics kept hold of their own congregations and powers by incorporating portions of Christianity into their sect. They then presented their religion as the best understanding of what Jesus really meant.

Think about it, all through the Gospels were the statements that the Apostles didn't understand Jesus, so it would make sense for some to say, "Yes, my fellow Gnostics and I have a clear understanding of what Jesus meant! Not only that, our logic is better."

On the other side were those who insisted upon following Apostolic teachings and traditions, from those same men who clearly didn't understand Jesus even while he was with them.

The breaking point was when one group insisted Christ was only divine, and the other side insisted he was both human and divine. They probably agreed on many other things; many other disagreements probably didn't matter all that much. But the humanity/divinity of Jesus was the breaking point, where people had to choose one side or the other.

We see a similar point today between Catholics and some non-Catholics over the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We agree on many things. We disagree on others, but these disagreements are not all that important. The deal breaker is the belief (or non-belief) over the True Presence.

 

[aris2chat]

The New Testament as in the Kings james version. The ending 16:9-16:20 was added to better fit the other gospels. In the original it ended at 16:8 and the women went away fearful and amazed from the tomb and told no one. Yet the ending was indeed changed as the years went by and the oldest version of mark never has the current ending that is in the king James version. And it is an apparent edit the prose is wrong and words are used that the original author never used. The New Testament has other "edits". I realize most of you believe that the gospel was written by divine inspiration but it is obvious that it was changed to fit the doctrine. It appears to had been added in the 4th century. So they were inspired to change it close to 400 years after?

And since it was changed why is not the gospel of judas not included? It was found and it was just as old as the other gospels yet the gospel of mark is the oldest?

more than one mark and the ending most know in the bible codex of mark was added much later