Earliest Gospel of Mark Found?

Originally posted by Jordan River


Mods, this is News!
Incredible new discovery may find out that this fragment may be a "missing link" To the new testament as being officialy first century writing, instead of the 2nd century theory. This is amazing and may hold a candle stick as being an official document that may authenticate our newtestament translation. Interesting, very interesting in my opinion. I find this very fascinating, but I also believe we are at a pivotal point in history, with vatican corruption/issues

www.wnd.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

In reality, about 80% of the original writings were excluded from the final cannon at the first council of nicea. The book we read today wasn't cannonized until about 350 after Jesus Christ death.

Oh, did I mention that the person who initiated the first council of nicea was a Pagon?

Originally posted by Bearack
In reality, about 80% of the original writings were excluded from the final cannon at the first council of nicea. The book we read today wasn't cannonized until about 350 after Jesus Christ death.

Oh, did I mention that the person who initiated the first council of nicea was a Pagon?

edit on 21-2-2012 by Bearack because: (no reason given)

The creation of the bible through the council is a misinformed info. It's in wiki. and most of the 80% of the writings that were excluded can be bought through the internet or sacred writing.com. Cheers!

Originally posted by palg1
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

1. Please remember that Marcion did not believe that Jesus was related to the God of the Jews, and therefore did not recognize the validity of the old testament.

2. Marcion's idea for the written Gospel was innovative for the Christian era and church historians give him that credit, but remember that that he was a dualist who only recognized the gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul as authentic. Everything else was "gnostic" and was therefore heretical. Please note that It is widely believed by the church and contemporary historians that Marcion himself edited some of those writings in order to suit his message.

3. The Marcionic cult was eventually assimilated into mainstream Christianity before the end of the forth century.
In other words, even the Christians of the day held his teaching and his methods to account and chose other paths to follow.

edit on 21-2-2012 by palg1 because: just a few missing details.

Thanks for responding but did you read the review I posted?

First of all, while discussing the non-canonical Christian texts that were presumably considered in some circles also to be divinely inspired, when Price emphasizes that the history of the formation of the New Testament canon is underestimated in importance, he is not exaggerating. For example, upon inspection the various Nag Hammadi texts must not be dismissed merely as the weird rantings of some bizarre Gnostic sect, as they were evidently as "orthodox" as any others prior to the decrees of Pope Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 AD/CE. These texts, then, must be factored into what constituted early Christianity, not just as examples of Gnosticism or even as "Gnostic Christianity." The fact that they were hidden indicates their concealers were squarely considered part of the Christian church and only "heretical" if they had belligerently retained these texts. Many of Price's conclusions, such as that the canonical Gospel of John itself was likely a Gnostic text, will come as a surprise to some, but such assertions are based on logic founded upon the evidence, not on irrational and prejudicial belief with no scientific basis. Concerning John's gospel, Price writes: "As for the vexing question of gospel authorship, we may immediately dismiss the claim that it was one of the twelve disciples of Jesus." (p. 667)

Not only did the apostles not write the gospels but Marcion wrote the book of Mark!

Other of Price's more interesting and surprising conclusions appear under the section exploring the date and authorship of the Gospel of Mark, concerning which Price states: Like the other gospels, Mark seems to come from the mid-second century CE. Probably the crucial piece of evidence for dating the book is the Olivet Discourse, or the Little Apocalypse as Timothee Colani dubbed it, constituting chapter 13 of the gospel. It appears to have been an independent apocalyptic pamphlet circulating on the eve of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Mark picked it up and made it part of his text; but which destruction and which temple were portrayed? As Hermann Detering has shown, the warnings of dangers and dooms outlined in the text fit better the destruction of city and temple during the Roman campaign against the messianic King Simon bar-Kochba in CE 136 than in CE 70 as is usually assumed. This means that Mark has absorbed an earlier document that already stemmed from the third of the second century CE. (p. 69) (Emphasis added.) Thus, the suggestion arises that the gospel of Mark - considered by many to be the earliest of the canonical gospels - must have been composed after the destruction of 135 CE. In supporting this late dating of the canonical gospels, Price cites various anachronisms within Mark, such as "the depiction of synagogues scattered throughout Galilee when in fact they seem to have been largely confined to Judea before 70 CE…" (pp. 69-70) Dr. Price further makes the startling but logical connection between the "heretic" Marcion and the evangelist Mark. In his association of Marcion with Mark, Price comments: We may also note the clear Marcionite tendency of the gospel, with its unremittingly scathing portrayal of the disciples of Jesus as utter failures to carry on the Christian legacy. Indeed, it is not unlikely the subsequent choice of the ascription "Mark" reflects the name of Marcion, the early-to-mid second century champion of Paulinism. (p. 70) It is interesting that the word for "Mark" in Greek is Markos and in Latin Marcus, the latter being the name of "three leading Gnostics," one of whom is depicted by Church father Adamantius (4th cent.) as a Marcionite defender. Moreover, in his Dialogue Adamantius concurred with the assertion of early Church father and bishop Papias (fl. c. 130 CE) that the evangelist Mark had never heard or been a follower of Christ. (Catholic Encyclopedia, "St. Mark")

If this is true then Vatican assassins are already on their way to get the manuscripts

Remember the Apostles were not written by Apostles that's why it says "According to the Apostles"
And we all know what happens with the phone game

Secondly the bible went through decades of rewrites by church elders, so none of you ever read the bible

Should be interesting though

reply to post by Jordan River


oh to make a mockery out of men for your own gain. You are the greatest of all Time.

They think they have just ask them. Do each think they have the market of heaven, and all else have the lake of fire. Isn't that all that matters. Of course that man can circumvent humanity and be a god himself is a bit narcissistic dontcha think.

Isnt that the point since the Annunaki left. all through the ages. To build a rocket ship to God. Isnt the invention of Christ a human rocket ship. Mans noble attempt at achieving Godly status with the notion that if this Paradigm doesn't work then the next one will.

Go ahead let even an older book change what man has done through his long history. Yeah, I'm so sure

reply to post by Jordan River


How do you know, were you there!!! You cant say either way. Nobody can. WIKI yeah, all of the sudden wiki knows the story, my foot and my backside.

Wikipedia: the know all answer page of the super computer hi-way. Invented by Al Gore

Forget modern scholars: wiki has the answers, how pathetic

reply to post by rebellender


Why do you have such hostility toward people who comfortably differ in their beliefs than yours and feel no need to debate with you because of it? Are you this miserable around everyone?

Geez.

reply to post by imherejusttoread


are we just now going to discover a truth?

Deny Ignorance...If we all live our lives in Faith there is no need for gold, property ownership or government,
Certainly no need for the pastor of any congregation to SELL (pass the plate) the Holy Spirit.

I have my reasons for my anger but on an anonymous forum how do you know anything which I think. Only what I write.

reply to post by Jordan River

First off the Nag Hammadi texts are a collection of 13-14 volumes of different types of texts. There are a few Gnostic and Hermetic texts, fragments of Plato's Republic along with other texts. But other than the Gospel of Thomas their relevance is a discussion for another thread. IMO the Secret Gospel of John really does fall into the ramblings of disturbed man category. (Feel free to disagree)

Who wrote the gospels of Mark!
I did read the work of M. Price and there is one important point that bothers me.
If he had indeed written the book, why did he not include it in his cannon? The other problem I have is that Mark writes of Jewish traditions in order to teach the gentiles. Marcion was so anti-Jewish that he would not have wasted his time, and openly advocated this position by removing old testament references in both Paul and Luke's writings and insisted that Judaism was distinct from and in opposition to a Christ as Savior religion something Mark does not do.

Won't make any difference - people who want to believe it - will, people who don't want to believe it won't.

To try to get perspective on this new book, I think that there are two things to consider:

- Looking at other classical books - which helps to analyse non emotively - , e.g. Iliad that were handed down in verse before being written, these often had elements of truth running through them (Troy was an important battlefield, chapter 2 feels as though it came from a roll call) but did have questionable parts involved (visiting the underworld was classical hero gaining). You may want to treat the bible in a similar way to Herodotus Histories which tried to be a collection of town histories and was much more closely accurate - but again with flights of fancy when the writer wanted to (although with a nodding glance that he was going into flights of fancy)

- The books play a very important part simply because there is very little physical evidence of the characters (only the name of Pontious Pilate has been found). The Romans did leave a vast number of words carved on gravestones, some buildings and some documents. Unfortunately Jesus and Co. had very common names - which did not help

Originally posted by rebellender
are we just now going to discover a truth?

Deny Ignorance...If we all live our lives in Faith...

Then you and I define 'faith' differently. You abide by the fideistic definition, while I abide by the Judaistic version of faith, which was admirably sketched out by Evan Harris Walker:

Faith was never meant to be blind faith. Faith was always meant to be a faith guided by revealed truth. . .But the demands are so much greater now. Now we can see better how easily we err and how easily we stray. We need a better way to seek out truth, to assimilate the jewels of all our religious teaching into one universal faith founded in knowledge that we can verify as we do the facts of science. . .No one who believes in the truth of any of the world's great religions should fear losing any essential part of that faith by testing its truth against what we can learn with this new science. Those willing to discover an even greater truth in their religion will find untold wonders hidden in what they already believe.

I have my reasons for my anger but on an anonymous forum how do you know anything which I think. Only what I write.

Well, Jordan River said it many times that he/she isn't looking to write a book or prove anything to anyone and your responses were as if he/she were trying to and it appeared as if you felt you were being persecuted. Why? If it offends you, don't read it.

reply to post by imherejusttoread


Lost my faith with a discovery in the Jehovah God.
Am I right and you are wrong, no I am not going there completely. I will question motive on the thread start.

so they find some text.

to me all it means is that some dude pretended to be the son of god, and a bunch of people believed him and wrote about it

all it proves is there was a bloke called jesus knocking about

doesn't prove anything else in my book.

reply to post by Bearack


The Council of Nicea did NOT set the Canon of scripture.

It was convened by the Christian Emperor, Constantine I.

Here's a Wikipedia link (Take note of its "Character and Purpose").

Learn a little history instead of repeating the same erroneous stuff.

reply to post by Jordan River



It will be interesting to see if it has the last verses disputed by some of Mark 16.

"These signs shall follow them that Believe . . . "

I hope it does.

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by rickymouse
They need to find someone who knows nothing about the writings of mark in the bible. A christian who knows our version will translate it to what he knows. The bible we read now was translated many times throughout history and even though there may be no intent, things change.

agreed but everything remains consistant within the new testament, philosophy and other subjects such as trinity. This is important when you compare christianity to other religions, (other three, islam, judaism) Islam has no real strong theological philosophical background, principles and the such. Judaism does not answer the question to evil, which I believe is an issue

example. 3... father son holy spirit (ghost)
3rd dimension that we live in. Trinity (short exmaple)

edit on 20-2-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

I disagree. There is just 'one fragment' that may be 1st century according to reports. That fragment may only contain a few words. So to assert that somehow the new testament is somehow 'more authentic' because of this fragment is an exercise in futility. It proves nothing in all likelihood. The 'Trinity" and other such concepts were added to the NT much later than the 1st Cen. at the behest of the new Christian authorities - led by the Roman Emperor. The NT has been changed and re-written countless times...

Originally posted by jimbo999



I disagree. There is just 'one fragment' that may be 1st century according to reports. That fragment may only contain a few words. So to assert that somehow the new testament is somehow 'more authentic' because of this fragment is an exercise in futility. It proves nothing in all likelihood. The 'Trinity" and other such concepts were added to the NT much later than the 1st Cen. at the behest of the new Christian authorities - led by the Roman Emperor. The NT has been changed and re-written countless times...

edit on 22-2-2012 by jimbo999 because: (no reason given)

No, I agree with what you were saying. But somehow misscommunication happened during my post. You really think i didn't know this. I do believe that the NT would be more authentic to the historical dates bringing the NT creation closer to the time of Jesus if it was a copy (or original) mark

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by Jordan River

 

How do you know, were you there!!! You cant say either way. Nobody can. WIKI yeah, all of the sudden wiki knows the story, my foot and my backside.

Wikipedia: the know all answer page of the super computer hi-way. Invented by Al Gore

Forget modern scholars: wiki has the answers, how pathetic

Honestly I am not that interested what became of the NT, more of the first period (first century) than the next 600 years, religioon is more political than the core beliefs anyway. I'm sure God wants you all to be in a specific party/religiion/group/faction

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by Jordan River

 

How do you know, were you there!!! You cant say either way. Nobody can. WIKI yeah, all of the sudden wiki knows the story, my foot and my backside.

Wikipedia: the know all answer page of the super computer hi-way. Invented by Al Gore

Forget modern scholars: wiki has the answers, how pathetic

Honestly I am not that interested what became of the NT, more of the first period (first century) than the next 600 years, religioon is more political than the core beliefs anyway. I'm sure God wants you all to be in a specific party/religiion/group/faction

edit on 22-2-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

with this book you will get an ear full of the Cult of Sol Invictus Mithris taking over Christianity
Secret Societies of Moses

reply to post by rebellender


Let me guess this is another bible bashing thread?

Why don't people create a few threads disproving buddism or taoism?

Just wondering.