Jesus said;- The hidden things will be made manifest

“For there is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light”- Mark ch4 v22

How do we take the prospect of hidden things being revealed? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
The ambiguity of this premise may be illustrated by the fact that it appears in the words of Jesus as a command, as a promise, and also as a warning.

In Mark’s account, it follows on from the simile about the lamp and the bushel.
The same simile appears in Matthew and Luke, but here it is in the form of a rhetorical question. Surely nobody brings a lamp into the room for the purpose of keeping it hidden? Don’t they set it up in a prominent place, so that the light will shine out?
In the same way, nothing has been hidden or made secret except for the purpose of being made manifest, coming to light.
In the context, this has to be applied to the revelation of good news in the teaching of Jesus.

Matthew turns it into a promise.
“So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known”- Matthew ch10 c26
Jesus has just been warning his disciples about the hostility of those who hate his mission. The enemies of the teacher will malign his pupils, the enemies of the master will malign those who serve him.
But “do not fear them”, because their malice and their hypocrisy will be exposed for what it is, and you will be vindicated.

But the presentation of the gospel is also a kind of “revealing”.
That thought association prompts the next verse;
“What I tell you in the dark, utter in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim upon the housetops”. This assumes, of course, the low flat rooves of Palestine, the perfect speaking platform.
So the disclosure of what is bad is given as a promise, and the disclosure of what is good is given as a command.

Luke seems to know both versions of the tradition. One popular academic theory is that Luke gets part of his information from Mark’s gospel, and part from a collection of “sayings of Jesus” which Matthew would also have used.
In an early chapter, Luke simply repeats the combination of statements found in Mark (ch8 vv16-17).
At a later stage (ch12 vv1-3), he puts together a combination of thoughts resembling the passage in Matthew.
He begins with the warning “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy”. This has been borrowed from an episode recorded by Matthew and Mark.
Then, as in Matthew, the words “nothing is covered up that will not be revealed” are a promise about the final exposure of that hypocrisy.
Finally, he gives a different twist to the words that follow;
“Therefore what you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed upon the housetops”.
So this outcome is not an instruction, as it is in Matthew, but another prediction, a warning addressed to the hypocrites themselves.

This complex of statements offers two angles on the basic thought.
On the one hand, the good things that are hidden are to be brought out into the open.
This is primarily about the proclamation of the gospel.
On the other hand, the bad things that are hidden are also to be brought out.
This is primarily about the time of judgement.

Surely both angles are needed.
Between them, they are part of “the eschatological reversal”.
What is bad about the world is to be overturned, what is good is to take its place.
In this case, it is the concealment of truth (together with the publication of falsehood) which is to be reversed.
Depending on our own relationship with truth and falsehood, this expectation may be a warning, or it may be a promise.
In the meantime, the Christian is to take it as a command.

so none, ie...not one of the new testament writers knew a man named Jesus, in fact they lived, supposedly 100 to 300 years AFTER his supposed life. The name Jesus, does not exist in Aramaic, so what gives? I believe in higher consciousness/ God, I guess, but why do you keep putting this absolutely insupportable rubbish out supported by 3rd century ad fiction writers commissioned by a church all you protestants dont even believe in?

a reply to: BlueJacket
Slightly incoherent post not particularly related to topic.
No response necessary.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Im sure thats how you want to paint it, but your premise hinges on exactly what I said. Im not here to troll you, how do YOU rectify what I asked?

Does it make sense to pray to a name that is not the true name of the son of God?

Is that not breaking the culturally appropriated 10 commandments? Hold no other God before me?

originally posted by: BlueJacket
Does it make sense to pray to a name that is not the true name of the son of God?

The exact shape of the sound that comes out of human mouths does not matter in the least (even "Jesus" is pronounced at least two different ways). So the issue is not relevant.

This thread is about things which he said.
If you're not trolling, don't try to divert to other topics. Refusing to get diverted is one aspect of my standard anti-trolling policy.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I will refrain inquiring of you..pertinent questions I have developed through a lifetime of questioning.

It would seem youre only interested in what your trying to imply, not the questions derived by people inclined to engage you in a difficult conversation.

You have lost a lot of face with me during the last few exchanges...Im sure you dont care, but this guy you call Jesus would have according to YOU.

a reply to: BlueJacket
There is a standard routine on ATS, that members keep to the topic of a thread, as defined by the title and the opening post.
The rule is not suspended in the Theology forum.
For future reference, I don't care if you don't like this rule.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I was on topic, by calling your citations into question. You are obviously not prepared to defend those, your OP depends on accepting those as valid.

Nice op!

I think a point is that mathew is shown to have some confusion and such just as in your other kingdom thread...

My take away is simple that nothing is secret from GOD and all deeds will be accounted for at some point.

Surely if we take up our cross then we are the light.

We do see in other verses to not seek out accolades for good deeds.

a reply to: howtonhawky
Yes, that's a good summary.
I think Matthew is collecting information from different places, and Luke may be re-arranging into what looks like a better order.

a reply to: BlueJacket

I try to respect and stay off of these threads. I am trying to find compassion towards other beliefs but I usually fail. Hey, have you researched any of the new chronology? I am still trying to wade through all of the astronomical alignment references but it appears that not just jesus was made up, but possibly the entire religious structure that plagues us today. It is starting to appear that most of our history was made up just to fit the narrative of the man created religious books. I am currently researching J Scaliger who appears to be almost solely responsible for the travesty of the timeline of history that haunts us today.

Fascinating research and it appears more and more people are starting to take interest.

Sorry DISRAELI if this is too off subject.

a reply to: BlueJacket

Well, to be fair the name they may have know was Yehoshua bar Yosef, Jesus was a "greek" translation of the name.


In point of Fact, Yehoshua was a common name, so they probably knew a ton of Yehoshua in the region at the time.



As to the historicity of the accounts in the Synoptic gospels, general research points to a far earlier document trail than 300 years. generally accepted scholarship tends to point to far earlier than 300 years.


As an example the closest Historic reference of the Gospel of Matthew is in ad 180, far sooner than that 300 year idea you have. if Christ died around 33 ad, you can subtract that to get less than half of your stated 300 years. Keep in mind thats going from a quoting of that gospel, so it could easily have been sooner.


The LATEST of the gospels is Believed to be John, Just saying if your going to make statements try to research them a little better.


ETA: Mark's gospel is also thought to be the earliest of the Gospels at ad 50-70, btw.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: howtonhawky
Yes, that's a good summary.
I think Matthew is collecting information from different places, and Luke may be re-arranging into what looks like a better order.

Luke, was compiling accounts of what happened for his Patron, it is why 60% of it is pulled from Mathew and mark, while the remainder would of been from other sources. (ie first hand accounts, passed down from others).


It is believed at some point he continued on with Paul and Continued with writing ACTS.

a reply to: benrl

To be fair, I stated 100 to 300 years. I dont want to interupt anymore disrealis threads, but I cannot for tge life of me find a credable citation to his premises time and time again. Well researched, from one source, but no supporting references. Yet I have those for Galen, Julius Ceaser, Alexander the Great any multitude of people except these 4 guys plus Paul.

a reply to: BlueJacket

Do you hold all threads on ATS to such a high standard of evidence, or just the religious ones?


The Gospel of Mark, with a quick search of the internet, tends to show that Scholars think it was written as early as 70 AD. 40 years or so afterwards.



As far as the Historicity of the Biblical accounts, most scholars don't bother to attack it via a dating question, as the document trail tends to prove it well above most Historic documents.


As an example, most information about Julius Caesar are far less supported historically than any of the Gospel accounts, yet Julius Caesar is accepted fully as a historically accurate figure.

a reply to: BlueJacket

I wouldn't bother with your question here either blue jacket
Two things
You can ask a question in your own thread
There are so many explanations to your quandry its embarrassing you should even ask it
So many others before you, so many times have offered the same

a reply to: Raggedyman

fair enough, I wouldnt call it embarrassing to request discourse for deeper understanding. What I do see, is a lack of aprehension by some folks of their topic.

You dont know my faith, or lack there of, Im asking hard questions out of sincere interest...but that seems lost on most, not all of you.

a reply to: benrl

Yes, at least any I engage. I am very pragmatic and very ernest in my studies.

As man who makes a living in medical research and development as well as farming the source materials of the same...I look to my peers with"expertise" to help me see their process, I was not indignant in the least.

Show me the way, rather than deriding me. Check a couple of my threads, theyre not the best but they tend to be cited to support a premise.

a reply to: BlueJacket
Part of your problem is that you don't understand the nature of theological discussion.
if you want historical proofs, you need to go to the History forum. That's what History does.
If you want rational proofs from first principles, you need to go to the Philosophy forum. That's what Philosophy does.
if you want to argue about whether religion is a good idea, there's a Controversies in Religion forum for that.
Theology is about discussing what religion actually says, and it finds proofs in scriptural authority, which is sufficient in itself by definition. There is no need to go beyond that, any more than mathematicians have to prove the axioms of Euclid every time they do an exercise in geometry.

And frankly, if you spend your time dragging in irrelevant issues and shouting about what absurd rubbish everything is, your "bona fides" as a genuine "enquirer" is not convincing.
If you don't want to be ignored as a troll, don't behave like one.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I will honor your request. But the Christ, Im familiar with, surely would of had a different presentation.

So at your request, I leave all difficult questions to other people and forums.

You obviously dont practice what you preach