Oh, for gods’ sake!

Posted on by Ark

As it is almost universally acknowledged among bible scholars that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the four gospels to be written, why did the author feel no need to include several of the major foundational tenets of the Christian faith? Namely the virgin birth narrative, the genealogy, and the post resurrection appearances?

And yet, by the time the anonymous writer of gMatthew put pen to papyrus the powers that be felt these omissions to be of such importance that, besides copying over 600 verses from gMark, (661 verses approx.) some verbatim, he felt obliged to invent whole tracts to flesh out what was ostensibly already a fleshed-out collection of sayings, possibly using an unknown source, Q.

Do you think perhaps it is all simply made up?

Hmm… I wonder.

Ark

33 thoughts on “Oh, for gods’ sake!”

    1. Wholeheartedly agree, but unless challenged your average Christian does not regard this as paramount and will babble something unintelligible … such as ”Mumble …. mumble Mike Licona …..”

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Attached, and after ten thousand blood tests finally located the little bastard that started the whole problem. ANCA (Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies). Treatment underway, seems to be working a charm.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. Well, then, since you’re feeling better, the thousands of “thoughts and prayers” I sent your way clearly worked! MIC DROP, BABY!!! Proof of Jesus, and proof prayer works! I mean, what other possible explanation could there be? God bless you, my son! 😉

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

        2. Well, I’m certainly glad they found the problem …

          Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCAs) are a group of autoantibodies, mainly of the IgG type, against antigens in the cytoplasm of neutrophil granulocytes (the most common type of white blood cell) and monocytes.

          And now I clearly understand exactly what was going on!

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          2. That, hitting with naturally thick blood = Problem. But then I got an infection from a biopsy, and that’s another horror story altogether. Hit by two trains.

            Like

          4. I think it’s medspeak for “your immune system is on the fritz destroying blood vessels, and all we can do is prescribe a cocktail of pharmaceuticals in hope that things eventually get better.”

            Like

    3. Actually, it was all over Faithbook until Pontius Pilate ordered Marcus Zuckus to shut down their accounts for spreading far-right conspiracy theories.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    4. And yet Jz the book of John is silent re. the transfiguration- while the other 3 offer accounts.

      There is a reason one sees a chair in a room and the other does not see it but writes about the piano.

      If you want carbon copies/ get Xerox. At least you are talking about an event that you find distasteful so it’s worth something.

      Like

      Reply

      1. GJohn is also silent about the Virgin birth narrative and the genealogies.
        The author , whoever he/she was, probably recognized the nonsense surrounding these two tales and wisely omitted them from his/her own version.

        With the author making allusion that our hero was really Yahweh in disguise, perhaps he/she felt there was enough make believe stuff already?

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Tkx for noticing that only Matthew and Luke reference genealogy. Son of Abraham/ son of God/ son of Adam. Very important differences. Each reveals relevance.

          Kind of hard to argue against court records. Solomon/ David?

          Like

          Reply

          1. Hard? Quite the contrary, in fact. It is simple and straightforward to argue against the merits of a fictional narrative claimed to be fact. Evidence.
            And indoctrination is why evidence has little or no effect on one such as you.

            Like

      2. Only with the Gospels will you get Christian apologists trying to make the case for textual weaknesses — anomalies and internal contradictions — as somehow representing strengths.

        Up is down. Black is white. The sky’s not blue, it’s actually red.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  2. Of course all these missing bits are tropes of saviour / messiah narratives. The whole thing stinks of fan-fiction – so it probably is. I mean given enough time there would be vampires or other blood related melodrama – oh wait…

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  3. Think of it this way:

    Mark was in charge of the “final cut” theatrical release. Matthew and Luke later released their extended uncut versions.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket!

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  4. I can no longer access your blog, Ark. is there a way I can do so without having to join WordPress? It won’t let me in unless I join WP, which I don’t want to do. Google seems to be on their side, too. this is amazingly frustrating…

    Like

    Reply

  5. The gospel we call “Mark” was written, it seems clear now, to bolster Paul’s position as an apostle. Everything in gMark favors the mission to the gentiles and the Jews are portrayed as dense and/or venal. The disciples are portrayed as dunces who do not merit their positions as companions of Jesus.

    If you, as I, believe the disciples were made up also, it is curious that gMark goes to such lengths to discredit them. They were not mentioned, save Peter and John in any of the pre-gospel writings, so could their have been Chrsitian leaders posing as disciples? (“He and I were very close and what he told me was …”) All of these disciples, according to church tradition were dead before the gospels were written, but interestingly enough, though dead, went on writing for decades.

    The gospel we call “Matthew” was written with a more favorable attitude toward Jews, as Christianity was still riven into two main camps: the Jewish version and the gentile version. It had always puzzled me that gentile Christians felt it was oh so important to recognize Jesus as the Jewish messiah. Why? That adds nothing to the Christian storyline toward redemption. Clearly the messages were mixed … a lot. Mark is pro gentile mission, Matthew less so, Luke is back to backing the gentile mission, John is selling “Jesus is god” as a message, which no one had theretofore. The other gospels were selling that Jesus was the son of god, a high level messenger, but not co-equal with god. All of those machinations, including the bizarre triune god concept, came much later than the gospels.

    What seems clear now, also, is that Christianity was waning, along with traditional Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem, until after the turn of the century, and the gospels were the marketing materials that revived it. We all would have been better of had the writers left well enough alone.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  6. Actually, the first Gospel was written by a guy named Hank. Few know this, but it is true, and smart, devout, faith-filled, rational people like me know it. Oddly, the Gospel of Hank never even mentions Jesus. It speaks of a “living dead character named ‘Dracula’ who feasts on the blood of the living to survive.” Now, how if eff’s name Mark got his gospel outta this, who the eff knows. But I must say, if you want a good read, find yourself a copy of “The Very Scary Gospel of Hank,” and read away. Just keep the lights on when you do cause it’s very scary shit.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. That’s cause Google has been hacked by the Chinese and Kamala Harris! They are using Google to brain wash us all into becoming part of the Red Chinese Gov’t! STOP GOOGLING!!! It’s RIGGED!!!

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment