They Stole His Body - The Hijacking of Jesus

Originally posted by Sigismundus

The 2nd canonical Greek gospel 'according to Mark' whoever he was, chapter 1 through chapter 16:8 - was written andd originally amateurly copied in very bad 'childish baby-Greek' full of 'grammatical howlers' by an Aramaic speaker (may have existed in at least 2 versions - an earlier version known as Ur-Markus,and another version which scholars sometimes call 'Secret Mark' which was edited down to the 2nd canonical Greek gospel version(s) - content based midrashic expansions of OT Targum verses (Rabinnic prophecy-fulfillment haggadic Midrash) & Sayings-Logia (strings of Greek 'sayings' placed into the mouth of a Greek-speaking Iesous linked by 'catch words', e.g. all those separate sayings that mention FIRE /SALT in canonical Mark chapter 9:50-51

Thanks for you responce.

I must say here that this Ur-Mark or Uk-Mark is not a known extant manuscript but a supposition, a hypothesis like the "Q" document. Unlike "Q" the Ur-Mark thing has little support although you could say that a fair case has been made for it. Not to mention that the "logia" is also theoretical "Q" for all purposes.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Logarock

 

This is really not a responce to what i wrote but rather an avoidance of same. If its so disjointed and incomprehesible why not ask me to clarify what you dont understand.

I kind of figured it out as being a sort of apologist's tactic of saying, "If someone was just creating this fictional sort of story, they would never say it that way, so this means it must be true". So your whole post is different bits of rhetoric you picked up at church, interspersed with only slightly veiled personal attacks, which is the sort of attitude for the mentality of what goes by the name, Christianity, today but in actuality is nothing of the kind.

No really. You may be to touchy.

Although the logic, if a then b, is no stranger in this thread, in the case above about Paul....yes, sound logic would suggest that a grand conspiratorial effort would ceretainly have grasped the need to save Paul from the embarrassment of having belived Christ would return within Pauls lifetime. The fact that this remains amoung many other things intact in Pauls writings is proof that, while the council may have shuned the entire works of other authors and may have busied themselves with creeds, they were not ad hoc about re-writing scripture.

reply to post by Logarock
Well, that's the thing, I never suggested that anything like that was done.
It is documented in their own writings by the early church fathers that they traveled extensively with some sort of authorization, to destroy every competing Gospel they could find because whatever did not fit their accepted version was considered heresy and they were obligated to stamp that out.

reply to post by pthena

Hi again, Pthena -

You wrote :

QUOTE - "Is there some significance to 100 years after loss of Judean independence with the appearance of a Messiah? (approximate time period given for time of Jesus). The actual insurrection doesn't seem to have happened for another 30 years or so...." UNQUOTE

Yes, yes, yes ! Indeed there was a DIRECT co-relation between the various uprisings of Judaean militants (most of whom were Messianic-apocalyptically minded !) after the Macabbean revolt : here is the break down so you and others on this thread (mainly for those who never were told this kind of 'secret' information !) can see the pattern:


BCE 163 - The 5 militant-priestly sons of the Jerusalem High Priest 'Matathiah-ben-Hasmon' called 'Sons of the Hammer' (i.e. 'Maccabbeans'' = i.e. the Hashmonean Priesthood') led a PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL armed Revolt in Jerusalem (with the help of Rome of all people !) to overthrow the Syrian Greeks in JERUSALEM (e.g. Antiochus IV, Epiphanes ('the Revealer', spoken of in Daniel as the 'Abomination of Desolatioin' figure) - the Syrian Greek kings which occupied Judaea/Syria/the Levant were the 'Seleucids' the blood-descendents of Seleucius, one of the generals of Alexander the Great (who conquored Syria-Palestine c. 332 BCE) - in which series of battles they 'took back the Temple of YHWH' from the 'Abominator' who had desecrated it (stripping off all the gold and placing an ithyphallic statue of Zeus into the Holy of Holies !) - and re-dedicated it to the Hasmonean Priesthood c.the time of the Winter Solstice (from Heb. 'chanak' = to dedicate; hence 'Chanukkah', = 'Feast of Dedication')

BCE 63 - after 2 Jubilees of semi-independence (Judaea was more or less under 'self rule') i.e. exactly 100 years, the Roman General Pompey having arrested/disbanded the Jewish-Cilician Pirate ring at Tarsus (where the infamous Saul/Paul later came from) invaded Jerusalem with the Roman Army - and re-entered the Temple precincts with an armed guard - killing many priests (& running into the Holy of Holies, only finding gold plated-walls, purportedly asked the Levites, 'Why is there no god here?') - from that point, Rome had officially 'occupied Judaea militarily' - a shock to the Judaeans who thought 100 years of semi-independence was going to turn into 1000 years of total independence from the 'goyim' (i.e. gentiles, non Jews) who 'had infected the Land of Yisro'el'.

36 CE - R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean 'Nazir' (Heb. Nazir = 'Branch [ of David'] see Zechariah 6:9) whose name in Greek is Iesous - but whose name is to-day 'Joshua' - descended from the Davidds - arms his disciples WITH SWORDS (='Luke' chapter 22:35ff) at the 100th anniversary of the Roman Invasion ('the Kittim' of the War Scroll (1QM) of the Dead Sea c. 63 BCE /re-written in 37BCE and c. 14 CE) speaks of the 'Final War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness in the Last Days, when all the Sons of Belial shall be annhialated, but all the Sons of Light shall be Victorious..." - there is a an armed scuffle with the temple police in an olive-press cave (Gayith Shemaneh - 'Press of Oil') near the Mount of Olives (see deutero-Zechariah 14:4) during Passover, late March 36 CE, which according to 'Mark 'chapter 14 happened at the same time as THE INSURRECTION - remember Iesous Bar-Abbas ? - i.e. at the 100th anniversary of the Roman Invasion of Palestine under Pompey (200 Years exactly following the Maccabbean Revolt against Antiochus IV) = cf: 'Now the Times of the Amorites are Fulfilled ! Repent and believe the good-news of the kingdom !'

The phrase 'The Times of the Amorites' is used (see Gen chapter 15) generically to refer to the 'Gentile (non-Jewish) Occupiers of the Land of Israel;' throughout books such as 'Jubilees' which the dead sea scroll community regarded as 'Holy Scripture' - Eretz Yisro'el ('the land of Israel') after all was invaded and occupied many times since David - first by Egypt during Solomon's reign (he sold to the Pharaoh nearly 30 towns of the Galilee), then by Syrians in the 9th century BCE, then by Assyrians (c. BCE 722-701) then by the Babylonians (c. 587-531 BCE ) then by Persians (531-331 BCE), then by Greek Syrians ( c. 331 BCE) then by the Roman army (c. BCE 63) -

CE 136 - Bar Kokhba (a Daviddic Messiah figure) leads a 2nd (failed) Jewish war against Rome & is also killed like R. Yehoshua 100 years earlier.

(so the pattern is: BCE 163 = BCE 63 = 36 CE = 136 CE - revolts spaced 100 years apart...)

The 1st Full Scale (failed) Revolt against Rome (AD 66-72) took place at the 70th anniverary of the Death of Herod in BCE 4 - Apocalyptic books e.g. Jubliees and Daniel etc. tends to see 50 (Jubilee) or 70 year 'weeks of years' periods - so these are 'apocalyptically-timed' armed Revolts against the occupying 'Amorites' in Eretz Yisro'el...

There is a DVD I have of a movie
A Little Princess
that I used to watch with a woman who was my friend who used to live with me sometimes, like when there wasn't anything on TV. Anyway, in the movie, that is based on a book by the same person who wrote The Secret Garden, a young girl is left at a boarding school while her father goes off to some sort of war. He is assumed to be dead but in reality, he had a brain injury and people had just assumed he was dead because he could not get it together to explain to anyone who he was. In the end, the girl ends up by circumstances at the man's house and identifies him as her father.
Nice story and everyone is reunited and happy and no one dies among the main characters.
I started listening to audio books, as an alternative to TV and radio, from
LibriVox: free audiobooks
and I downloaded the mp3 files for the book and listened to then over three days.
Turns out in the book, the father died and his friend who was keeping track of his affairs came down with brain fever in India and could not figure out where his friend had left his daughter.
Not exactly a satisfactory Hollywood ending. The book for some reason written in 1888 was acceptable and actually very popular with depictions of how this girl when she was completely destitute after the death of her father and before her discovery by her father's friend, gave what little she had to people who she found who were actually worse off than her. People noticed her behavior and changed their own life and even to where she met with her own redemption through that kindness she showed. The fact that her father was no longer around was something she had already learned to deal with and she enjoyed all the new friends she had found.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I guess I've never seen the recent version, I do sort of remember the 1939 version, with Shirley Temple. I don't think I've ever read the book, it does seem to be public domain so probably readily available.

gave what little she had to people who she found who were actually worse off than her. People noticed her behavior and changed their own life and even to where she met with her own redemption through that kindness she showed. The fact that her father was no longer around was something she had already learned to deal with and she enjoyed all the new friends she had found.

Kind of like Pollyanna. So if you imply a parable, the moral of the story is: Even without a God or Messiah that can be pointed to, people can still help and enrich lives?

reply to post by pthena
Well we don't have one right now (at least in a normal sensory way).
We seem to get on with it.
Will it make any difference when it is all over if we don't have this tearful reunion with Jesus, since we never knew him in that sort of way to begin with, where now he is so many words on a page?
I don't know if Jesus said, "If you follow my instructions, your reward is to see me and hang out."
(I mean what he said himself versus what is said in other parts of the NT)

reply to post by jmdewey60

Will it make any difference when it is all over if we don't have this tearful reunion with Jesus, since we never knew him in that sort of way to begin with, where now he is so many words on a page?
I don't know if Jesus said, "If you follow my instructions, your reward is to see me and hang out."
(I mean what he said himself versus what is said in other parts of the NT)

That part in parentheses seems an obvious reference to the Revelation verse, "behold, I stand at the door and knock..."

Think a little about this thing I wrote in one of your threads, ignored and no stars:

And when Jesus had finished speaking, the disciples were sorely shocked.
And one of them collapsed on the ground weeping.
And one of them grumbled angrily under his breath.
And yet another timidly spoke up, "But master, yesterday you said. . ."
And Jesus replied, "That was yesterday. I've changed my mind."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for what we have in words on paper, I can detect a change in message between the time of the baptism of Jesus and the time of his discourse on the destruction of Jerusalem and temple. This maturing of thought and message are not allowed by people who consider Jesus as the "all wise, all knowing, god in the flesh". Only a real man can learn, change his outlook, and alter his teaching, a static god can't.

ETA:
As for Paul, he fell into a routine of preaching "the Christ who can be proven from scripture (OT and whatever)"

AC 17:1 When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2 As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ, "
. . .
AC 17:10 As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

If the teaching of a man are held as a static revelation rather than a learning process, the man is mangled. How much more is the man mangled if he is jammed into conformity with words hundreds of years older!!

reply to post by pthena
I don't think I ever get starred and I never even think to look but I probably would notice if I ever did.
I was tired when I make my post after deleting a couple I was not happy with, so I did not want to be making a list of things that would contradict what I had written.
I think now, all of a sudden, that Jesus is in God.
And, also all of a sudden, that Jesus is in us, and we are in Jesus.
God somehow has the capacity to incorporate into his own being, the Angel of Jesus.
I realize you don't like Revelation but I believe there is no Jesus in Revelation.
What it does have is this taking back by God, the angel essence of who Jesus was, and now is, as an integral part of God. So when John sees in Vision this strange apparition walking among the lamp-stands talking at one time as Jesus and talking another time as God. It is this spirit which is now part of God's spirit where all Jesus was, is preserved forever as part of Him.
Part two of my "all-of-a-sudden believe" is that the identity of Jesus is transferred to those who are his "fellows" as in the fellows the Son of Man of Daniel transfers this power to, that he received from the Ancient of Days.
So the "Lamb that was Slain" in Revelation is not Jesus but those who are his brothers and sisters in death who gave their lives for the sake of the truth, those who have purified themselves in the "blood of the lamb" meaning baptized in their own blood.
The only "actual Jesus" is this disembodied voice at the end saying, "Yes, I sent my Angel before me to indicate the truth of these matters".

reply to post by jmdewey60
I guess I'll just link to what I wrote on On Religions and Atheism. How do you justify it?

And HWAWG says to Yahweh, "You and your agenda be damned! I take what is mine. This man gave his flesh and blood to me as an everlasting covenant. The body belongs to me."

So here's the culprit who stole the body! HWAWG did it!

Mythology I can do, jump in, dance around, and then step out of.

Revelation is like a trap to me. I kind of think Sigismundas has the gist of it down to, "it was a cheerleaders victory chant for the purpose of causing false bravado in the hearts of the Jerusalem insurrectionists so that they would continue to oppose Rome and get crushed."

It seems to reflect Yahweh the claimant of creation, rather than a better GGOA.

reply to post by pthena

It seems to reflect Yahweh the claimant of creation, rather than a better GGOA.

You mean Revelation, right? I don't expect to be able to get you to like it but my thing is that people read it and they see Jesus in it everywhere, and when I look at it, I see him not at all.

reply to post by jmdewey60

You mean Revelation, right? I don't expect to be able to get you to like it but my thing is that people read it and they see Jesus in it everywhere, and when I look at it, I see him not at all.

Then why mess with the damned thing? Every Fanatical Militant Messianic movement in the history of the Church reaches into Revelation for its inspiration.

Think of the poor non-combatant civilians in Jerusalem in 70 AD who relied on their "god" to save them from the Romans in some miraculous intervention as promised by the prophets in Zechariah and Ezekial. They died as martyrs. For what? None of that was necessary. That's just more blood on the hands of Yahweh.

Jesus didn't say to do that. He said to leave Jerusalem to its fate, just walk away. Some people on this forum are committed to dying as martyrs because of some promise of special status achievable, according to Revelation. So will they remain where they ought not to be so as to get killed? Will they start confrontations?

You know how popular it is in the US to fetishize Judaism, and hold to OT Yahweh as creator. I'll bet you $1,000(I don't think gambling is allowed on ATS) that the National Sabbath Law when it comes will concern Saturday and not Sunday

REV 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth--to every nation, tribe, language and people. 7 He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water."

So "the gospel to the world" is "fear Yahweh, and worship him"?

I guess I'm lucky to not even be a creationist, therefore the message is clear to me.

Great! I did it again! Took a few verses out, rather than copy the whole thing word for word! Now I'm subject to the curses at the end! Those curses be damned!

reply to post by pthena

that the National Sabbath Law when it comes will concern Saturday and not Sunday.

I already see the handwriting on the wall for that.
Thanks for doing more performance in mythology for the sake of humanist concerns.
Kind of difficult to let cherished beliefs go. Kind of a trick, maybe, and one I point out as being how cults work , this line, He who has understanding calculate the number. . . ,so whoever reads that thinks, Well that would be me. People make a game of it to see how smart they are to figure it out. I probably need to see what sort of theology I could keep without resorting to Revelation and put no dependency on it.
I did notice that too, about this call to worship which I now find out of place in Christianity.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I did notice that too, about this call to worship which I now find out of place in Christianity.

Speaking of calls of worship on the de facto American Holy Day (9-11) at the de facto American Hallowed Ground (so-called ground zero) this happens in front of the whole world via live proadcast:
Obama Reads Psalm 46 at 9/11 Ceremony

. . .who is at the right hand of God. . .

I don't think this means a physical, as in the normal type which is of the created universe, presence.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I don't think I want to mess around in Christian Theology any more. I just read the whole Wikipedia article on Chabad messianism. All the human psychological reactions experienced by the followers of rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson the Messiah, who died in 1994, is just all too familiar sounding. I'll paste one section here, just in case wikipedia changes their article.

Anthropology: Comparisons with early Christianity
Some scholars of religion have made comparison with the development of early Christianity:[6] Anthropologist Joel Marcus writes:

“ The recent history of the modern Chabad (Lubavitcher) movement of Hasidic Judaism provides insight into the development of early Christianity. In both movements successful eschatological prophecies have increased belief in the leader's authority, and there is a mixture of ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ elements. Similar genres of literature are used to spread the good news (e.g. miracle catenae and collections of originally independent sayings). Both leaders tacitly accepted the messianic faith of their followers but were reticent about acclaiming their messiahship directly. The cataclysm of the Messiah's death has led to belief in his continued existence and even resurrection."[113] ”

Such comparisons are something which makes many Orthodox Jews uncomfortable. Scholar Mark Winer has noted that "The Lubavitcher movement's suggestions that their late rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson is the Messiah, reflect Christian millenarianism"[114]

Anthropologist Simon Dein has noted: "Lubavitchers held that the Rebbe was more powerful in the spiritual realm without the hindrance of a physical body. However some have now claimed that he never died. Several even state that the Rebbe is God. This is a significant finding. It is unknown in the history of Judaism to hold that the religious leader is God and to this extent the group is unique. There are certain Christian elements which apparently inform the messianic ideas of this group."[115]

Some have gone so far as to describe Chabad messianism as halachic Christianity. Judaism scholar Jacob Neusner writes:

“ A substantial majority of a highly significant Orthodox movement called Lubavitch or Chabad Hasidism affirms that the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who was laid to rest in 1994 without leaving a successor. . . will soon return to complete the redemption in his capacity as the Messiah. Hasidim who proclaim this belief hold significant religious positions sanctioned by major Orthodox authorities with no relationship to their movement."[116] ”

Even before I got to Anthropology section, it was obvious. The dying with the non-messianic follower as executor was just exactly like Jesus and James, who was also an unbeliever Jn 7:5, and James was able to hang out freely in the temple.

In current Chabad, it's an open secret that Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson is the Messiah, therefore they can associate freely with any Orthodox Jew.

reply to post by pthena

I don't think I want to mess around in Christian Theology any more.

I get that and am cool with it. I can see why you would not support it as "THE truth", but I hope you at least continue to point out flaws in what people preach which is obviously to you not truth.

reply to post by jmdewey60
I was really hoping that Newage man would take up my request to form Neo-Marcionism. It shouldn't really be difficult. Marcion went off and thought about it for a few months, then started teaching it. It's simple.
1) Yahweh is not God
2) Yahweh is a malevolent character.
3) Jesus is excellent.
4) Jesus saved us from Yahweh and his Law (which is an instrument of death)
That's the basics.
I would recommend not considering Yahweh to be creator but rather the lying claimant of Creatorhood.
I would recommend a non dualist view, as opposed to gnosticism. That is: Both flesh and spirit are neutral, the combining of the two into one is good, for that is life.
I recommend accepting Gospel of Thomas, and rejecting Enoch.

That's about it. Doesn't that look easy? Any one should be able to create a systematic theology from that.

One last note: There is no such thing as a written word of God.

Edit to add:
It normally wouldn't be necessary to even think about Yahweh anywhere but in Canaan's land, but he broke the deal I made with him. I was to not go to Israel to confront him, and he was not to mess with me in America.

But Obama has been possessed by a spirit from Yahweh, so think of Obama like one of the "judges" from Book of Judges, liable to do great destruction when "the spirit of Yahweh comes upon him."

reply to post by pthena

I would recommend a non dualist view. . .

There are good spirits and evil spirits.
I don't get the whole "flesh" thing.

reply to post by jmdewey60

There are good spirits and evil spirits.
I don't get the whole "flesh" thing.

By non dualist, I mean, reject the classic neo-platonic dichotomy: (flesh is evil prison - spirit is good trapped in evil) Rather, Body and spirit as one are good - that is life. It's all in Gospel of Thomas. Unity of life is through eating and drinking - not through sex. Therefore sexual relations should be based on down to earth concerns rather than religious concerns (excessive inbreeding is retarded)

I don't have any idea why there are evil spirits, I don't think that they are permanent, They seem temporary unless bolstered by and fed by religion or ritual.

The overall purpose of the PThena sect of the of Neo-Marcionite cult is to act as a half-way house for Christians wanting to escape the clutches of Yahweh without immediately giving up on Jesus. As such, it is not to be taught to people who don't need it. The only people who need it are the ones escaping from Yahweh. Atheists and such are usually already free.