The Gospel of Mark

[Waterfall]

Yes, you are right. It is not newness of the fabric that is the problem but the fact it has not been pre-shrunk. Is Jesus suggesting we should patch old cloaks with old fabric? Or does He want us just to buy new cloaks?

This is very confusing to me and I don't really see the connection between the two analogies either.

I think the idea must be that new wineskins are always required for new wine.

If you are decanting old wine from one of those big pottery jars, do you use an old wineskin?

Maybe the message is simply that something new is coming up. Perhaps we are reading too much into all of this.

Maybe more of a spiritual transmutation....by spiritually reducing Judaism to its original and most basic roots of origin in order to perfect it?Or perfecting ones spirituality to a higher form or fullness.
Transmutation: altering something from its original state to a higher form. Eg.... philosophers stone ...lead to gold or old wine skins to new.
The spiritual path of transmutation to transformation to transfiguration?
Maybe Im also reading more into it than I should? I dont know.

 

[blackbelt1961]

May I remind you & others we already discussed the question of Being Born Again on the Matthew thread?

If there is still more to say about it, please create a new thread for this purpose.

The Nicodemus story is in John. We will get there eventually.

you may,

I was simply responding to Ritafee

 

[Luce NDs]

Can one be blinded by flare? Thus great exclusionism by those eluding the responsibility of inclusion ...

So it wends along like light out of alien dimensions ... and few understand "wend" ... it too can weave and wobble due to gravid dispositions ...

Starburst ... supernova? Can these be trumped or trounced out of time ...

 

[unsafe]

paradox3 -----your quote ------Jesus takes a similar stand on the sabbath. It is made for humankind. Humankind is not made for the sabbath. Is this because sabbath observance is a gift?

unsafe says -----the Sabbath was given to be a Blessing to mankind a day to rest from their normal work ----But of Course the Pharisees had made the Sabbath a burden by their man made traditions and man made strict rules that were not in the meaning of the command to keep the Sabbath -----Exodus 20:8-11 tells us that God Blessed the Sabbath day and made it Holy ------The Sabbath was Created for all of Man kind not just the Jews -----The Israelites took it over and made it their own and criticized all man kind for breaking their rules on the Sabbath ------Jesus says that eating on the Sabbath is not unlawful and the Son of Man rules over the Sabbath -------

 

[Mendalla]

I wonder why Jesus was going through the grainfields on a sabbath. Would He not have been observing Sabbath? Sabbath observance is one of the ten commandments, after all. Maybe he and the disciples were just out for a stroll, taking a break from the work of teaching and healing.

The story doesn't say and perhaps doesn't need to. Again, it has that concise parable quality to it that make me wonder if it describes a specific real situation, or was a story that circulated orally to make a point and was picked up by Mark.

It certainly points to him having a different notion of "keeping the Sabbath holy" than seems to have been the norm for Jewish society. Like some Jews today, they seem to have been quite strict about Sabbath and what could and couldn't be done. Of course, Christians have done that, too, with the various laws over the years governing what could and couldn't happen on a Sunday. I remember the electronics store in Kitchener where we rented VHS tapes (pre-Jumbo and Blockbuster) back when we first had a VCR could rent tapes on Sunday but not sell equipment, so you walked through the front part of the store with everything roped off to get to the video rentals. Personally, I think it should be left to individual conscience as to how to "keep the Sabbath." It's none of society's business.

In Jesus case, they needed to eat and he seems to feel that meeting necessities doesn't break the Sabbath (which I would agree with). He doesn't really indicate here how to keep the Sabbath, though, only that he didn't think his disciples gathering grain to eat violated it.

 

[paradox3]

What do we think Jesus meant when he indicated, "The Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath"?

 

[Luce NDs]

OO*ps too .... that is also going against the grain ...

 

[blackbelt1961]

What do we think Jesus meant when he indicated, "The Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath"?

Jesus is saying, even in His human nature, His humanity that He has authority over the rules of the Sabbath, since Jesus also being Son of God in flesh, Jesus is greater than all the Laws because it Is Jesus Himself who is the author of the Laws .


Jesus speaking in human and divine terms , showing His supreme authority even over the legalistic Pharasies who has set them selves up as lords over the Jewish people.


A Claim to His Divinity

 

[Luce NDs]

Is there anything more Anthropocene ...

 

[Mendalla]

Jesus is saying, even in His human nature, His humanity that He has authority over the rules of the Sabbath, since Jesus also being Son of God in flesh, Jesus is greater than all the Laws because it Is Jesus Himself who is the author of the Laws .


Jesus speaking in human and divine terms , showing His supreme authority even over the legalistic Pharasies who has set them selves up as lords over the Jewish people.


A Claim to His Divinity

I think this is about right. It's one of the passages where he is pretty clearly asserting some kind of authority from God, whether it is as the Son of God or as God's appointed voice.

 

[unsafe]

paradpx3 ----your quote ---- What do we think Jesus meant when he indicated, "The Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath"?

unsafe says ---I agree with blackbelt1961's post ---that He was telling the Pharisees that He is the one who exercises authority over their rules and regulations and that includes the Sabbath ------He was as blackbelt1961 said showing His 2 natures here ----- showing His supreme authority over the Pharisees who just don't get it ------

 

[blackbelt1961]

I think this is about right. It's one of the passages where he is pretty clearly asserting some kind of authority from God, whether it is as the Son of God or as God's appointed voice.

indeed,

for the Pharisees, Jesus is a threat to there legalistic power and control they have over the people, enslaving the people under religious rule , which is a greater bondage than physical bondage.

Jesus being the Grace of God , tears down the mental bondage of religious legalism and sets people free to live without fear

 

[paradox3]

We are not even through the second chapter of Mark and the gospel writer has already given us an account of a most extraordinary individual.

He has been given the title Son of God and is using the title Son of Man. He has cured the sick and cast out demons. He has the authority on earth to forgive sins and has declared He is lord of the sabbath.

He has been attracting crowds & they have been amazed. The Pharisees are already complaining.

We are on the cusp of something new, it seems, with the parable about the new cloth and the new wineskins.

 

[Mendalla]

I think the one problem with Mark, looking at it from a literary standpoint, is the tendency to short parables. It doesn't flow and develop so reads more like a book of sayings than a developing story. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing for a religious text, though it does mean some of the teachings feel like they are coming out of left field, but it certainly explains why media adaptations of Jesus' story tend to use Matthew or Luke (or some combination of the two).

 

[unsafe]

unsafe says
I think personally that the audience that the Gospels are speaking to makes a difference in the information given out ----

Mark is most likely speaking to a Gentile audience ----the Gentiles did not really know the one True God they were into paganism ---I am sure they had some exposure to the Word but How Much I don't know -------so speaking to this group of people with a lot of information would not benefit them as it would go over their heads and would mean nothing to them ---so to keep it simple was good when addressing Gentiles just giving them a bit so they could grasp it ------

Kind of like a seasoned True Christian speaking to a Babe in Christ -----they have to be fed Milk first for a while cause they are not ready to be fed the Meat of the Word -----


What is the Purpose Behind the Gospel of Mark? – A Bible Study
APRIL 11, 2014 BY JACK WELLMAN

Who was Mark Written to?

What is the Purpose Behind the Gospel of Mark? - A Bible Study

We do know that Mark was of great service and help to the apostle Paul late in Paul’s life (2 Tim 4:11). Even though Paul had earlier refused to have Mark go with them on a missionary trip, he later changed his mind about Mark. But what audience did Mark write this gospel for and what was his purpose for recording what should really be called the gospel of Peter? He apparently wrote it for the common man on the street. The simple style in which he wrote it reflected the working man’s approach as Peter was a fisherman by trade and was part of the local fishing trade. There is some evidence that this gospel was written in Rome for Roman Christians, but among the four gospels, it is the gospel that is most recommended for those who are new to the faith because it is written in an easy to understand format. The reason for this is that it is an uncomplicated book and goes right to the point when speaking about the gospel of Christ and being stripped of excess verbiage it could easily be read by the working masses and slaves. The gospel of Mark contains fewer Jewish customs and prophecies and so it is more easily understood indicating that it is intended to be the gospel for the Gentiles (those outside of the Jewish faith).



From Got Questions
Gospel of Mark - Bible Survey

Date of Writing: The Gospel of Mark was likely one of the first books written in the New Testament, probably in A.D. 55-59.

Purpose of Writing: Whereas Matthew is written primarily to his fellow Jews, Mark’s gospel appears to be targeted to the Roman believers, particularly Gentiles. Mark wrote as a pastor to Christians who previously had heard and believed the Gospel

 

[Mystic]

Here are just 5 points to keep in mind in discussing Mark:
(1) Papias has conversed with John the Elder, a disciple of Jesus and disciples of Jesus' disciples and learns that Mark's Gospel is based on Peter's teaching notes. Mark had been Peter's interpreter.

(2) Modern Gospel scholarship takes the following facts as foundational: Mark is a primary source for both Matthew and Luke. Matthew copies 90% of Mark and Luke 55%. So an analysis of how Matthew and Luke change Mark in their copying is a key to understanding each Gospel's purpose.

(3) Mark's Gospel portrays the most human Jesus.
(a) Jesus' retreat into the wilderness after His baptismal vision is handled more shockingly in Mark than in Matthew and Luke. Mark tells us that "The Spirit immediately DROVE (ekballo) Jesus into the wilderness (1:12)." The Greek "ekballo" is violent verb, the same verb as is used for Jesus' "casting out" demons. Both Matthew and Luke opt for the less offensive verb "led" to describe this event.
(b) In 13:55 Matthew changes Mark's reference to Jesus as "the carpenter, the son of Mary (6:3) " to "the carpenter's son," whose father is Joseph to remove the implication that Jesus had been a common laborer.
(c) Only Mark has Jesus complain about lacking respect "among their own kin and in His own house (6:4)." Both Matthew (13:57) and Luke (4:24) delete this phrase in their citation of this saying.
(d) Both Matthew and Luke omit Mark's reference to His family efforts to "physically restrain Him" because they think He is "out of His mind (Mark 3:21)."
(e) In Mark Jesus distinguishes between Himself and God: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone (10:18)." Matthew (19:16-17) rewords Mark's verse into a discussion of the nature of goodness.

(4) Mark (6:5-6) implies that Jesus tried and failed to perform miracles in His home town "because of their unbelief." Matthew (13:58) changes "could do no" to "did not do many" to remove the implication that Jesus had no choice in the matter. Scholarly commentaries rightly note that Mark's "except" clause is a later gloss.

(5) Mark's most unique theme is "the Messianic secret." Jesus refuses to explain the meaning of His parables to outsiders (4:12). Jesus apparently believes that true spirituality is better caught than taught. When Peter finally discerns that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus commands Him to kept this insight a secret (8:30). Jesus commands His disciples to keep their witness of His miraculous Transfiguration a secret until after His resurrection (9:9). When Jesus has a chance to heal Jews privately, he commands them to keep their miracles a secret from the masses. When exorcised demons try to expose His messianic identity, Jesus silences them (1:25). Jesus evidently prefers conversions based on a direct spiritual encounter with God rather than from the evidence of miracles.

btw. many people falsely assume that there was abundant precedent for Jesus' exorcisms in the Ancient Near East. In fact, there no prior Middle Eastern example of exorcisms prior to Jesus, though belief in demons was widespread. But after Jesus. exorcisms become common (e. g. Hanina ben Dosa and Apollonius of Tyana).

 

[Mendalla]

Here are just 5 points to keep in mind in discussing Mark:
(1) Papias has conversed with John the Elder, a disciple of Jesus and disciples of Jesus' disciples and learns that Mark's Gospel is based on Peter's teaching notes. Mark had been Peter's interpreter.

(2) Modern Gospel scholarship takes the following facts as foundational: Mark is a primary source for both Matthew and Luke. Matthew copies 90% of Mark and Luke 55%. So an analysis of how Matthew and Luke change Mark in their copying is a key to understanding each Gospel's purpose.

(3) Mark's Gospel portrays the most human Jesus.
(a) Jesus' retreat into the wilderness after His baptismal vision is handled more shockingly in Mark than in Matthew and Luke. Mark tells us that "The Spirit immediately DROVE (ekballo) Jesus into the wilderness (1:12)." The Greek "ekballo" is violent verb, the same verb as is used for Jesus' "casting out" demons. Both Matthew and Luke opt for the less offensive verb "led" to describe this event.
(b) In 13:55 Matthew changes Mark's reference to Jesus as "the carpenter, the son of Mary (6:3) " to "the carpenter's son," whose father is Joseph to remove the implication that Jesus had been a common laborer.
(c) Only Mark has Jesus complain about lacking respect "among their own kin and in His own house (6:4)." Both Matthew (13:57) and Luke (4:24) delete this phrase in their citation of this saying.
(d) Both Matthew and Luke omit Mark's reference to His family efforts to "physically restrain Him" because they think He is "out of His mind (Mark 3:21)."
(e) In Mark Jesus distinguishes between Himself and God: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone (10:18)." Matthew (19:16-17) rewords Mark's verse into a discussion of the nature of goodness.

(4) Mark (6:5-6) implies that Jesus tried and failed to perform miracles in His home town "because of their unbelief." Matthew (13:58) changes "could do no" to "did not do many" to remove the implication that Jesus had no choice in the matter. Scholarly commentaries rightly note that Mark's "except" clause is a later gloss.

(5) Mark's most unique theme is "the Messianic secret." Jesus refuses to explain the meaning of His parables to outsiders (4:12). Jesus apparently believes that true spirituality is better caught than taught. When Peter finally discerns that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus commands Him to kept this insight a secret (8:30). Jesus commands His disciples to keep their witness of His miraculous Transfiguration a secret until after His resurrection (9:9). When Jesus has a chance to heal Jews privately, he commands them to keep their miracles a secret from the masses. When exorcised demons try to expose His messianic identity, Jesus silences them (1:25). Jesus evidently prefers conversions based on a direct spiritual encounter with God rather than from the evidence of miracles.

btw. many people falsely assume that there was abundant precedent for Jesus' exorcisms in the Ancient Near East. In fact, there no prior Middle Eastern example of exorcisms prior to Jesus, though belief in demons was widespread. But after Jesus. exorcisms become common (e. g. Hanina ben Dosa and Apollonius of Tyana).

You're racing ahead of us there, but definitely some interesting ideas to consider.

 

[paradox3]

Mark 3:1-6 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
The Man with a Withered Hand
3 Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. 2 They watched him to see whether he would cure him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him. 3 And he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Come forward.” 4 Then he said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. 5 He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.

 

[Luce NDs]

Mark 3:1-6 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
The Man with a Withered Hand
3 Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. 2 They watched him to see whether he would cure him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him. 3 And he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Come forward.” 4 Then he said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. 5 He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.

Reminds me of Mitch Albom's last book about other people in heaven beyond the first five you met ... the penne touche?

Then sects ... enough to occupy a poly Math ...

(this could represent a variety of lines of approach ... get it together)

 

[paradox3]

Reflection: Mark 3:1-6

The Pharisees are watching Jesus closely, looking for infractions of the Law. Jesus is not afraid to question them but they remain silent. Jesus is angered by their lack of response and proceeds to heal the man with the withered hand. This action puts Jesus in danger and the Pharisees begin to conspire with the Herodians to destroy Him.

We had this story in our study of Matthew and it also appears in Luke. Each gospel writer tells the tale a little differently.

Was healing the man an act of passive or active resistance? It was resistance for sure, but would you call it passive or active?

I am drawn to this: He looked around at them with anger: he was grieved at their hardness of heart. Does the anger and grief of Jesus speak to you in any way? Jesus and the Pharisees were clearly at odds within the world of their faith. Does this story have any relevance to our experience with church in present times?

He looked around at them with anger. But it seems He managed to "move on" quickly.