The Gospel of Mark

[paradox3]

Essentially, the idea of Jesus as bridegroom signifies humanity being received into God's family, if you like, rather than a one-on-one love relationship between human and God.

Roman Catholic nuns are sometimes seen as brides of Christ. Sometimes the Church herself is conceptualized this way. Do you think the idea might have originated here?

 

[unsafe]

paradox3 -----Fasting as you have pointed out was not a Big issue for God ------it was more of an issue for the Jews themselves in my opinion -----


Please Note ------unsafe posting here Not saying --------posting this cause it gives info on Fasting which is what is being addressed today
In Mark 2 verses 18-29 --- fasting ------

unsafe posting here on Fasting from link below -----read all if interested --I only posted the last paragraph -----

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/fast-fasting/

The purpose of fasting is never explicitly stated in Scripture but its connection to penitence, mourning, and supplication suggests a self-denial that opens one to God and to the immaterial aspects of life. Inasmuch as food and drink typify life in the flesh and all its demands and satisfactions, their absence or rejection speaks to the reality of a higher dimension, one in which the things of the spirit predominate. The theology of fasting, then, is a theology of priorities in which believers are given the opportunity to express themselves in an undivided and intensive devotion to the Lord and to the concerns of the spiritual life.

unsafe says
Fasting was used to get God to move in a situation -----as seen in scripture below

unsafe posting from 2 Samuel 12 CSB -----

The Death of Bathsheba’s Son
The Lord struck the baby that Uriah’sL)'> wife had borne to David, and he became deathly ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the boy. He fasted, went home, and spent the night lying on the ground.M)'> 17 The elders of his house stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat anything with them.

unsafe says ----The Pharisees liked to show off out in public to show how good they were so it was a call to their piety ---- and Jesus had showed His displeasure of their antics on many occasions ----and their fasting was no different --so when some people question why they are not fasting Jesus uses the bridegroom at a wedding feast as an example -----

A wedding was a joyest time not a morning time or a sad time -----the bridegroom is Jesus ---the guest are the disciples and they are enjoying their time together -----Fasting was used for morning or being sad ------So Jesus says while the Bridegroom is with the guest they cannot fast -----there is no need in other words to fast -----then Jesus says but the bridegroom will one day be taken away from His disciples and then there will be a time for fasting as sadness and morning will appear -----

unsafe says -----
The patching of the cloth and wine skin shows --God hates Mixture -----Mixing the Old with the New makes us lukewarm and unstable in all our ways -----the cloth will not hold securely together because the old will eventually give way and take the new with it ----the wine will eventually burst through the old and again take the new patch with it --------

unsafe says ---the only way for us to be secure and remain steadfast is to put new wine in a new wineskin --------that is a time is coming when the Old Covenant will come to an end and the New Covenant will take over and we are not to mix the 2 together -------straddling the fence makes us insecure and unstable -------

 

[unsafe]

paradox3 -----I am posting the lukewarm Scripture sorry I forgot to give the scripture above where I used the word lukewarm

Revelation 3:16
New American Standard Bible
'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Mendalla ------Your quote ------unsafe said: ↑ or if it was just his way to connect with them using words that matched their occupation

unsafe posted ------definition of a lie ------
verb (used without object), lied, ly·ing.

1. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.

unsafe says ------I did not make this statement that you quoted me saying therefore you have made a false statement knowing that I didn't say this statement -----I quoted an article and if that is where you got this statement from then it is the article that said it NOT ME ---so you are in fact knowingly deceiving people who may read your quote and think I did say this statement when in fact I did not -----

So you are lying Mendalla -------If you have a problem with what the article says then talk to them not me and don't say I said a thing when I didn't say it ---I posted it from the link provided ---------

I have a very good solution to your 'problem', unsafe. I propose that the entire forum put you on ignore, then we'll never be tempted to quote your posts. You're being a total idiot about this.

 

[Mendalla]

I have a very good solution to your 'problem', unsafe. I propose that the entire forum put you on ignore, then we'll never be tempted to quote your posts. You're being a total idiot about this.

I had her on Ignore but took her off just because she did say something worthwhile things in this thread. Look, @unsafe, I'm sorry I misattributed the words but I was not "lying", which would be a deliberate act. They got misattributed because you didn't set them off from your own words in any discernable way so the quote function picked you up as the speaker. If you used the system features as intended, that wouldn't happen.

 

[Mendalla]

And now, lets get back to Mark, please. If the digression doesn't stop, I'm going to start moving posts.

 

[BetteTheRed]

And what of the new cloth and the new wineskins? I have heard them interpreted many times as the New Covenant. Could they simply mean renewal?

I'm not even sure I really understand the connection between the two things. I get the idea of not patching torn, older material with "unshrunk" new material. It's NOT the newness of the material that is the problem, it is the fact that it is not pre-shrunk before stitching. A step has been skipped.

However, the wineskin part puzzles me, because, of course, I only get wine in bottles (or plastic bladders in a box if I'm buying for a crowd). Does something about keeping wine in a skin "rot" the skin so it becomes leaky, or do the seams go? Isn't that wasteful, if you have to have a new leather wineskin for every batch of wine you make? Anyone with any knowledge of making and storing wine in skins? I thought, via the wedding at Cana (sorry, John reference!), that wine was made/stored in large pottery jars.

 

[Mendalla]

I thought, via the wedding at Cana (sorry, John reference!), that wine was made/stored in large pottery jars.

That was the norm in the ancient world, yes, but amphoras aren't terribly portable. You would have decanted into wineskins or smaller vessels for drinking or take some on a journey with you.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Oh, so maybe it's the newness of the wine that is the problem. That "new" means, possibly, not quite finished fermenting, so it would need a strong solid container until it had aged a bit more? And then, haven't we got an organizational problem, if we have to be drinking wine that isn't finished fermenting. Wouldn't we be better off getting a bit ahead of ourselves, next time we can round up a few extra grapes?

That sort of ties in better with the patch story: a step has been skipped (the wine has been insufficiently fermented, as the fabric was insufficiently shrunk).

 

[GeoFee]

So you would say the wilderness experience resulted in a changed person?

What relevance does this have for our lives today, in your view?

I will say that wilderness is a place of transformation. The old is put off, there is a period of testing and refinement, and then there is a new experience. Basically: Orientation - Disorientation - New Orientation. This presents us with opportunity to turn from conformity towards liberty.

 

[Mendalla]

I will say that wilderness is a place of transformation.

Need it be a literal "wilderness", or could be a more psychological time of isolation and challenge within the bounds of "civilization"? I'm thinking of, for example, someone who gets cuts off from their usual family and social circles due to a move, life change, mental health challenge and must live in that isolation even though they are still living in a city/town.

 

[paradox3]

I'm not even sure I really understand the connection between the two things. I get the idea of not patching torn, older material with "unshrunk" new material. It's NOT the newness of the material that is the problem, it is the fact that it is not pre-shrunk before stitching. A step has been skipped.

However, the wineskin part puzzles me, because, of course, I only get wine in bottles (or plastic bladders in a box if I'm buying for a crowd). Does something about keeping wine in a skin "rot" the skin so it becomes leaky, or do the seams go? Isn't that wasteful, if you have to have a new leather wineskin for every batch of wine you make? Anyone with any knowledge of making and storing wine in skins? I thought, via the wedding at Cana (sorry, John reference!), that wine was made/stored in large pottery jars.

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.

 

[Mendalla]

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

As I suggested, Jesus seems to be saying that to embrace the new, we must completely get rid of the old. It's radical, not incremental or evolutionary, transformation.

 

[paradox3]

As I suggested, Jesus seems to be saying that to embrace the new, we must completely get rid of the old. It's radical, not incremental or evolutionary, transformation.

And I think this is why the passage is often taken to mean tossing out the covenant God had with Israel and replacing it with the new Covenant.

But I am not convinced Jesus is saying this. I agree He is talking about a major transformation.

 

[paradox3]

Need it be a literal "wilderness", or could be a more psychological time of isolation and challenge within the bounds of "civilization"? I'm thinking of, for example, someone who gets cuts off from their usual family and social circles due to a move, life change, mental health challenge and must live in that isolation even though they are still living in a city/town.

Some theories of change involve an "open space" between the old and the new way of being.

 

[Mendalla]

And I think this is why the passage is often taken to mean tossing out the covenant God had with Israel and replacing it with the new Covenant.

But I am not convinced Jesus is saying this. I agree He is talking about a major transformation.

No, that's never really suggested so far in Mark. A transformation that would happen within the Law, but change how it is lived would be more likely, I think. Which fits with Jesus' teaching about the law that we saw in Matthew 5 (I assume it's okay to refer back to previous books).

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,[a] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Mendalla]

Some theories of change involve an "open space" between the old and the new way of being.

But would the kind of social/psychological isolation I describe work as the "open space" or does there have to be a literal "wilderness" involved? I'm thinking there are circumstances where we can be in the "wilderness" without leaving our own homes or at least while still in an urban setting.

 

[paradox3]

But would the kind of social/psychological isolation I describe work as the "open space" or does there have to be a literal "wilderness" involved? I'm thinking there are circumstances where we can be in the "wilderness" without leaving our own homes or at least while still in an urban setting.

No need for a literal wilderness.

 

[unsafe]

paeadox3 -----your quote ----And I think this is why the passage is often taken to mean tossing out the covenant God had with Israel and replacing it with the new Covenant. ----- But I am not convinced Jesus is saying this.

unsafe says -----Jesus is getting ready to make the Old Covenant of the Law obsolete and bring in the New Covenant of Grace -----and Jesus is telling the Pharisees that they can't mix or patch their Old Covenant religious rituals with the New Covenant which required Faith in Jesus -----No Faith was needed to keep the Law ------No man could keep it -----the Curse was in place for Israel --------the New Covenant of Grace requires Faith as Grace comes through Faith ----the New Covenant cancels the Curse of the Law and brings in The Blessings for those who receive Jesus as their Lord and Saviour through Faith in what He will accomplished on the Cross -----

That is the spiritual message behind the patching of the cloth and the wineskin ----now you don't have to believe that is your choice ----but that is the spiritual message He is sending to the Pharisees here ------

You cannot mix the Law and Grace -----

 

[BetteTheRed]

That's a really anti-Semitic reading of the text, unsafe.

Also, makes your version of god to be a breaker of promises. Godde made a covenant with Judaism. Godde may also have made a covenant with Christianity; it does NOT necessitate Godde breaking the OTHER contract.