The Gospel of Mark

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

yes indeed, what i am saying is , while mortal, no one can love perfectly like the Creator,

thus we have grace
This is the source of joy to those who are effectually dead to themselves and alive in Christ. As the apostle puts it: “It is no longer I (mortal) who live but it is Christ (immortal) who lives in me.” This not as doctrine but as lived experience.
 
This is the source of joy to those who are effectually dead to themselves and alive in Christ. As the apostle puts it: “It is no longer I (mortal) who live but it is Christ (immortal) who lives in me.” This not as doctrine but as lived experience.

one of my favorite passages!
 
Hi,
Is this something you are prepared to examine?

George

I think this is really germane to something that has come up here and elsewhere. The using of another gospel to fill in 'gaps' of the one we are reading. The anti-Semitism chronically exhibited by unsafe is because she reads John into everything. It's wyrdly different to the way the world reacted "post-Holocaust". We understand very clearly that "Nazi" is not equal to "German". I think that Angela Merkel, and her party policies, and the moral state of Germany, etc., are all just fine. So, why do we tolerate someone especially condemning another group of people, based on reading all of the Bible with a "John" lens.
 
We include strangers in the love of God. Even when they suffer deep delusion. Each of does what we can to open a chink in the defensive armour. In the case of unsafe this has brought accusation against persons like seeler, myself and various others. We are all adversaries of God because we do not bow before her interpretation and presentation of scripture. She does not see satan as the Hebrew principal of accusation in the public square, or devil as the Greek principal of division which has the world increasingly in conflict. Both begin in a person's heart and spread through all that person's relations.

Feels like petting a porcupine.
 
I think this is really germane to something that has come up here and elsewhere. The using of another gospel to fill in 'gaps' of the one we are reading.
Yes, this has come up many times on these bible study threads and in other places. Sometimes even the epistles have been used to explain puzzling things in the gospels . . .

The evangelical voice around here seems to view the bible in its entirety and to feel that the perspective of one book can be used to understand any other book.

Others of us see the bible as a collection of writings which need to be examined in their own right.
 
Yes, this has come up many times on these bible study threads and in other places. Sometimes even the epistles have been used to explain puzzling things in the gospels . . .

The evangelical voice around here seems to view the bible in its entirety and to feel that the perspective of one book can be used to understand any other book.

Others of us see the bible as a collection of writings which need to be examined in their own right.

They are not entirely wrong, though. Older books influence newer ones so that is obvious. But if the epistles chronologically predate or are contemporaneous with the Gospels, then they could reflect on the thought that went into those Gospels. And we know the Gospels are not independent, that Mark influenced Matthew and Luke and that all may have had access to the so-called Q. Some may overstate the degree to which the Bible has a single narrative, but I don't think that you can view the books as totally isolated from each other either.
 
They are not entirely wrong, though. Older books influence newer ones so that is obvious. But if the epistles chronologically predate or are contemporaneous with the Gospels, then they could reflect on the thought that went into those Gospels. And we know the Gospels are not independent, that Mark influenced Matthew and Luke and that all may have had access to the so-called Q. Some may overstate the degree to which the Bible has a single narrative, but I don't think that you can view the books as totally isolated from each other either.
True enough but I still think it is possible to conflate scriptures without considering the variables involved.
 
In doing a bit of on-line research, I came across the statement that there are only 24 verses in Mark which don't appear in Matthew or Luke. I haven't been able to find a list of them.

In tomorrow's reading, we will see a "certain young man" wrapped in linen who follows Jesus after the other disciples flee. The young man will lose his garment and run away naked.

Very curious story. And who knows why Matthew and Luke did not include it in their gospels?
 
unsafe said:
The Jews were the chosen nation ----but their pride and greed did them no good --even thought they heard Jesus preach and saw all the healings and Miracles He did they refused to believe who He was -

Mendalla ----Your Quote------------ Seems to blame the Jews as a nation for rejecting Jesus, not just their elites, which is the classic root of Christian anti-Semitism. There is an almost unbroken line from the Christian accusation that "Jews are Christ-killers" to Auschwitz.

unsafe says ---in that time Mendalla the Jews were under their Religion of Judaism ---all Jews were following the 613Laws that were in place ---Jesus came to Preach to the Jews the Good News -----The Pharisees and Scribes were teachers of the Law to the Jews so the Jews would be listening to their teachers ----some Jews and some Gentiles who were not included in the Laws were followers of Jesus --but for the most part the Jewish people would not be accepting Jesus as the Messiah nor would they be accepting His Preaching because their hearts were hardened to the Message and to who Jesus really was -----they were unbelievers and their minds were Blinded by Satan to receive the Message of the Good News ------Period


Mendalla ----let me be very cleat that all Jews back then and now who refuse to see Jesus as the Son of God and who rejected His Message back then and Now have hardened hearts and Blinded Minds -----and the Religious Leaders were and let me be clear on this as well the ones who wanted Jesus out of the way ----The Jews People themselves had no involvement in the Plans by the Pharisees to Kill Jesus and that is a Period ++++++++++++ on that


unsafe says -----This is an interesting 5 min 30 sec Video -----for anyone

Is Judaism a Race, Religion, Family or Nation?
By Rabbi Mordechai Becher









 
Mendalla ----let me be very cleat that all Jews back then and now who refuse to see Jesus as the Son of God and who rejected His Message back then and Now have hardened hearts and Blinded Minds

I put two and two together and decided that it was an attempt to paint as large of the population labelled "Jewish" as a failure "of hardened hearts and Blinded Minds". @unsafe, have you got any Jewish friends? On the rare chance that this is so, do they know how you feel about them?
 
Summary: Mark 13: 1 - 37

1. Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. He tells the disciples to beware of others who will try to lead them astray. The should not be alarmed when they hear of war or rumors of war. Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes and famines. And this will be just the beginning of the birth pangs.

2. Jesus tells the disciples to expect persecution in His name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.


3. The desolating sacrilege will be set up where it ought to be. Everyone must flee and there will be suffering. For the sake of the elect, whom God chose, God has cut short those days. False prophets and false messiahs will appear. They will produce signs and omens to lead astray. Be alert.

4. After the suffering, the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give light and stars will fall from the sky. Then the Son of Man will come in clouds with power and glory. He will send out the angels and gather his elect from the the ends of earth and heaven.

5. This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away but Jesus' words will not pass away.

6. No one knows the day or hour these things will happen except the Father. Keep awake!
 
Reflection: Mark 13: 1 - 37

Oops! I mentioned earlier we would be reading the story of the "certain young man" today but he does not appear until Mark 14.

Mark 13 contains a strong apocalyptic message from Jesus, and He seems to be expecting end times within the lifespan of His disciples. He wants them to stay awake and alert because only God knows the day and the hour these events will take place.

The return of the Son of Man is promised and He will gather up His elect.

End times and the salvation of the elect are so clear here in Mark 13, I am not sure how I could ever have read this chapter differently. The gospel writer wants to persuade the reader of these things & he uses strong and poetic language.
 
Dissociation from the powers (comfortably jewst) may dislocate an interested person from something of interest ... interest once being an old Chinese curse as if you didn't wish to know!

Did you know that according to permutations and computations of statistics that 85 - 99% of folks in reality are disinterested in anything beyond self ... thus shelved! Tis an isolated conjecture like super fluidity ... it varies!

Depends on where you come from and where your at in the test ... somewhat like life can test your forte!
 
In doing a bit of on-line research, I came across the statement that there are only 24 verses in Mark which don't appear in Matthew or Luke. I haven't been able to find a list of them.

In tomorrow's reading, we will see a "certain young man" wrapped in linen who follows Jesus after the other disciples flee. The young man will lose his garment and run away naked.

Very curious story. And who knows why Matthew and Luke did not include it in their gospels?

Some scholars believe that this certain young man was in fact Mark and so he adds this autobiographical detail in. In which case it may not have been part of the larger tradition.
 
Some scholars believe that this certain young man was in fact Mark and so he adds this autobiographical detail in. In which case it may not have been part of the larger tradition.
Is this an autobiographical detail that is believed to be historical? Or is it more like the gospel writer signing his work?
 
Back
Top