It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I have found an inconsistency in the gospel according to Mark

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I was reading through my bible and came across this passage. There was one part of it that was very confusing to me. Here it is:

Mark 10:21

Then Jesus, looking at him , loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross and follow Me.”

Why would “Jesus” ask someone to take up the cross? The cross became a symbol of Christianity during the reign of the emperor Constantine. He supposedly had a dream and he saw a cross engulfed in light and a voice said to him “Under this you will rule” Ok even if I’m wrong and the cross was a symbol during the early part of Christianity it still wasn’t a symbol until after “Jesus” died.

Why would “Jesus” use the cross as a symbol of his teaching if he didn’t even die on it yet? I know most of you will say cause he’s God but that won’t fly with me. I think that this statement was deliberate who ever put it there. It is yet another proof of the deception that has been brought upon us.

A lot of people think that every thing in the bible is absolute truth even though certain gospels were left out on purpose. Don’t you think we could get a better understanding of this man if all the gospels were studied? We don’t have the actual gospel that was spoken by “Jesus” only the gospel according to Mathew, Make Luke, etc.

I think we’ve been hoodwinked!!!!!!




posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   
That is interesting, any comments?



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   
The Bible was written decades after the fact, by fallible men. Jesus probably said something along the lines of carrying the burden, and Mark just decided telling him to take up his cross sounded good.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   
jesus and co were revolutionarys...... in that time enemies of the state/malcontents were crucified "take up the cross and follow me" = join me and be ready to sacrifice yourself anyway this is one interpretation



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by thoth
jesus and co were revolutionarys...... in that time enemies of the state/malcontents were crucified "take up the cross and follow me" = join me and be ready to sacrifice yourself anyway this is one interpretation


Yes, that seems quite possible, as is the possibility that the 'cross' indicated a burden that would eventually lead to death - "Follow me to the bitter end".

There are quite a few inconsistencies in the New Testment, for example:

MT 1:18-21 The Annunciation occurred after Mary had conceived Jesus.
LK 1:26-31 It occurred before conception.

MT 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph.
LK 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary.

MT 3:16, MK 1:10 It was Jesus who saw the Spirit descending.
JN 1:32 It was John who saw the Spirit descending.

MT 6:13 Jesus' prayer implies that God might lead us into temptation.
JA 1:13 God tempts no one.


New testament inconsistencies



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   
The "King James" version of the bible has very little to do with the actual bible. It's a translation of a translation of a translation.....



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
A few of those aren't really inconsistencies.


MT 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph.
LK 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary.

Quite possible that an angel spoke to both, and MAtthew only cared about Joseph's angel.


MT 3:16, MK 1:10 It was Jesus who saw the Spirit descending.
JN 1:32 It was John who saw the Spirit descending.

they both could have seen it.

That said, the gospels were written decades after the fact completely seperately. I'd actually be suspicious if they were identical


[Edited on 27-1-2004 by Esoterica]



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Esoterica, suspicious if they were identical? Yes, two versions of the same story are so much easier to understand
. I guess that's why there are two versions of the creation story. We can just pick and choose, right.

DaTruth, ignore the inconsistencies, this is the infallable word of god we're talking about here
.

I don't think we've been hoodwinked, I know it.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotTooHappy
The "King James" version of the bible has very little to do with the actual bible. It's a translation of a translation of a translation.....


Very true. I think the originals were translated into Greek, then Latin, then the Vulgate, then the KJV ... etc etc etc

Talk about the chance of transcription errors !



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by JuanBond
Esoterica, suspicious if they were identical? Yes, two versions of the same story are so much easier to understand
. I guess that's why there are two versions of the creation story. We can just pick and choose, right.


That ain't what I meant.

If these guys were just making up the story, you'd think they'd at least all have the same story, right?

Now, if they are writing about events that occured a few decades before, it'd be natural to have details like this contradicting eachother.

Follow what I'm saying?



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   
You cant trust the KJV, it has major inconsistencies. The original 1611 version had 100s of mistranslated passages, and was coveed with
pagan symbols. You would have to read a Douay Rheims version which was translated into english from the latin vulgate bible which st jerome translated in
342-420 from the original languages.




peace.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by JuanBond
Esoterica, suspicious if they were identical? Yes, two versions of the same story are so much easier to understand
. I guess that's why there are two versions of the creation story. We can just pick and choose, right.


That ain't what I meant.

If these guys were just making up the story, you'd think they'd at least all have the same story, right?

Now, if they are writing about events that occured a few decades before, it'd be natural to have details like this contradicting eachother.

Follow what I'm saying?


sure, I follow. but, if the bible is the infallable word of god, our ticket to understanding how we are to live and ultimately get to heaven, who would he allow the contradictions to even be in there. is it deliberate confusion? and I always understood that the books of the bible were given to their respective writers by god, right. don't tell me god has a short-term memory problem...or decided to tell Matthew one thing, and the rest of them another. or do you belive the gospels were personal reflections by the apostles on their expirences with that jesus fellow? you do know that that kind of thinking goes against most church doctrine?

they very well might have had the same story at first. what's the odds that a bunch of fisherman knew how to write?

follow me?



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   
You ask "Why would HE allow inconsistencies"? A fair question indeed...

The way I learned it is that GOD gave man one thing he denied the Angels, FREE WILL and FREE thought... Seeing as how the bible was written by men I would venture a guess that he completely washed his hands of the whole process and based it on the free will idea.

I figure he allowed man to write the book in the hope that the men who followed the writers would CHOOSE of their own FREE WILL to beleive it, all the while being free to not beleive it.

I kinda think that's the WHOLE point of the bible... Either you beleive or you don't. The interesting thing about GOD is that he doesn't desire to force you to love him, sort of like our own children, we can't force them to love us, they either will or they won't.

Just my $0.02...

PEACE...
m...



posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 12:01 AM
link   
As applied to the original question: "Why would “Jesus” use the cross as a symbol of his teaching if he didn’t even die on it yet?"


Simple answer, though debatable....
The answer is that the Cross is a symbol or symbolizes the burdons/intricacies of the world; to take up the cross is to simply live the life of sacrifice, etc. that Jesus lived, breathed, endured, and walked in. You now, following the footsteps of Christ, the Great Example.
Read the story of Him in the wilderness for 40 days and one will see the meaning of carrying the cross or "taking up the cross".



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Yes there are many interpretations of the original text, however what you are referring to is in the new testament, which was written after Jesus died on the cross. It is Marks interpretation, If you look through Matthew,Luke and John you will find the same passages but different interpretations.
MY Bible says"Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me"



posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTruth
Mark 10:21

Then Jesus, looking at him , loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross and follow Me.”


The reason you see this inconsistency, is that the part about taking up the cross isn't there in the first place. Infact I believe only King James Version translates the verse this way. It simply says, "come, follow me" in the source. This is very typical for KJV. It is one of the worst translations around, but it is still one of the most popular, if not the most popular one. It is a horrible translation. Straight out blasphemous at times. People have even found ELS using steps of 666 in it. Wouldn't amaze me if the KJV is the bible of Satan.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 28-1-2004 by mikromarius]



posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   
DaTruth, realize you are talking about God when you are talking about Christ.
He knew he was going to die on the cross. He knew Peter would deny him and He knew which would betray Him. The cross was no secret to Him. All this side chatter is all moot.
If you want to not think things through, if you want to read without the Holy Spirit's guidance and look for reasons to doubt, you'll find them.



posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTruth
I was reading through my bible and came across this passage. There was one part of it that was very confusing to me. Here it is:

Mark 10:21

Then Jesus, looking at him , loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross and follow Me.”



Actually, that's not what many translations state. The entire "take up the cross" phrase is not present in several translations, but simply "then come, follow me." I believe you have a point in questioning this, and I believe this was added at a later date. But I think you may have gone a bit too far.



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikromarius

Originally posted by DaTruth
Mark 10:21

Then Jesus, looking at him , loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross and follow Me.”


The reason you see this inconsistency, is that the part about taking up the cross isn't there in the first place.


It must also be mentioned that "to take up one's cross" to the kings and knights meant to take up arms for Christ.

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 06:39 AM
link   
"He supposedly had a dream and he saw a cross engulfed in light and a voice said to him “Under this you will rule”

When jesus was alive, they said they wanted to start a rebelion, he said no and died on the cross.

I though jesus was againist WARS? fighting in the name of god?




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join