1 edit
Originally posted by josephwWhy would Clement lie?
The document may be authentic, but that doesn't make the content authentic or true.
From his letter:
As for Mark then, during the time when Peter was in Rome,
16 he wrote up the deeds of the Lord, not actually recording everything, nor
17 hinting at the mysteries, but instead picking out the things he thought would
18 increase the faith of those being taught. Then, when Peter was martyred, Mark went
19 to Alexandria, bringing both his knowledge and the things he remembered hearing from Peter.
20 From what he brought, he supplemented his first book with the appropriate items
21 about knowledge for those who are making progress. He arranged a more spiritual
22 gospel for the use of those being perfected. Nevertheless, he did not reveal the things
23 which are not to be discussed. He did not write out the hierophantic instruction of the
24 Lord, but added other deeds to the ones he had already written. Then, he
25 added certain sayings, the interpretation of which he knew would initiate the hearers
26 into the innermost sanctuary of the truth which has been hidden seven times. This is the way
27 he prepared them, in my opinion, not ungrudgingly or unguardedly. And
28 when he died, he left his writing to the church in
Plate II: Folio 1 Recto
01 Alexandria, where it is even now still extremely carefully guarded, being read
02 only to those who have been initiated into the greatest mysteries.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou are just racist and stupid for for thinking this and trying to prove it through Daniel 11:37.
Well, the antichrist will be gay and Jewish. Maybe the gayness is part of the weird symmetry beyween him and Jesus.
Daniel 11:37
Wait, how did the SAB decide this verse makes him Jewish? Sounds more like an atheist to me.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dan/11.html#37
Why?
Have you even tried to understand what it acctuly says there?
The Gods of your ancestors...and on, and on.
Come on Man read the bible of you going to take a the boald move of make a statment like that..
Their is nothin the bible (old testament) against the jews (only in the new testament). AThousandYoung do you want to lurn how its done? (retorical)
Daniel 12:1
That put Michael as the formost Angel can you contradict me?
1 edit
Originally posted by theprotectorsI'm just going by what I'm told by admittedly hostile (to the religious right) media. As far as I'm concerned, the "anti-Christ" is a silly concept. No one villain has supernatural significance that other villains don't have.
You are just racist and stupid for for thinking this and trying to prove it through Daniel 11:37.
Why?
Have you even tried to understand what it acctuly says there?
The Gods of your ancestors...and on, and on.
Come on Man read the bible of you going to take a the boald move of make a statment like that..
Their is nothin the bible (old testament) a ...[text shortened]... its done? (retorical)
Daniel 12:1
That put Michael as the formost Angel can you contradict me?
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's interesting that you would go to such great lengths to defend this dubious document, yet without batting an eyelash utterly brush aside Mark 16:9-20.
Stephen Patterson writes: "Today, however, there is almost unanimous agreement among Clementine scholars that the letter is authentic."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretmark.html
So is it a "stretch" to say that the majority of scholars accept that the letter is genuine?
Smith, not being a thief, could only take pictu ...[text shortened]... originality of traditions." 3
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_miss4.htm
Originally posted by epiphinehasHomosexuality is well documented by scientists under controlled *cough* conditions. 😳
It's interesting that you would go to such great lengths to defend this dubious document, yet without batting an eyelash utterly brush aside Mark 16:9-20.
The resurrection of deities...not so much.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo... it's not that secret then?
From the Secret Gospel of Mark:
And they went to Bethany and there was a woman whose brother had died. And coming up to him, she prostrated herself before Jesus and said to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me." But the disciples rebuked her.
And becoming angry, Jesus went with her to the garden where the tomb was. And immediately a great sound wa ...[text shortened]... /secretmarktranslation.html
We can see why this part didn't make it into the NT!
Originally posted by epiphinehasHow is the letter of Clement "dubious"?
It's interesting that you would go to such great lengths to defend this dubious document, yet without batting an eyelash utterly brush aside Mark 16:9-20.
Mark 16:9-20 is a separate issue but it is not included in the earliest copies of Mark that postdate Clement. It is rather clearly a later addition to justify the silliness of "driving out demons" and so forth that Jesus ridiculed in Matthew.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy would he lie? Because he didn't know the truth! 🙄
Why would Clement lie?
From his letter:
As for Mark then, during the time when Peter was in Rome,
16 he wrote up the deeds of the Lord, not actually recording everything, nor
17 hinting at the mysteries, but instead picking out the things he thought would
18 increase the faith of those being taught. Then, when Peter was martyred, Mark went ...[text shortened]... ully guarded, being read
02 only to those who have been initiated into the greatest mysteries.
