Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Evidently from events in history, it was Mark, himself. We know his uncle was close to all the 12 disciples. So was Mark's mother. So when they went off to the Garden, Mark evidently threw on some clothes and followed.
When soldiers c.f. and, Mark ran. Not completely naked, but without an OUTER garment.
Evidently from events in history, it was Mark, himself. We know his uncle was close to all the 12 disciples. So was Mark's mother. So when they went off to the Garden, Mark evidently threw on some clothes and followed.
When soldiers c.f. and, Mark ran. Not completely naked, but without an OUTER garment.
Better read that passage again:
A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.
(mark 14:51-52, NRSV)
He may have been wearing a linen cloth before being seized, but obviously he gave them "the slip" - literally, and ran off naked. Completely.
Your usage of terms such as "evidently" paint a picture, but nowhere do you state why it is "evidently" Mark who was the young man, besides pure speculation.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't think the individual was anyone concrete, but a symbol of the unfaithfulness of Jesus' followers. Looking for an individual is like looking for an actual real person in the figure of Abel, whose name means "breath of air, vapor, nothingness" and was invented merely to demonstrate that his short life was ended short, like a mere breath of air. He left nothing behind except a story, and probably never existed.
I'm afraid that won't do. The man (with great possessions) has kept all the commandments - which Jesus accepts. He needs only one thing. You can find this in Matthew 19. 16, by the way. which shows up the deceptive and rather clumsy cherry -picking of finding a totally unrelated earlier verse connected with Jesus denouncing the Pharisees and scribes and their rites. You could also have found this is mark 7.6 in the same un -related context
It says that the only thing the man lacked was to give up possessions, job, family, everything other than the church. I won't labour the import of the horrible message being given out, but will just say that, as an atheist, I have more respect for the bible than you do. I respect what it says and I do not dream of cobbling together unrelated bits of text to try to make it fit what I would like it to say.
The implications of that are equally horrible, because it means that the young man could give up his possessions if God had willed it. That he cannot is because God has 'hardened his heart'. Another good man condemned to hell, even before he was born. Not because he was rich - God (according to you) could have accomplished this. The only reason he wouldn't is because he was Jewish.
My thoughts exactly, except that I would add that the "riches" alluded to in the last quotation have absolutely nothing to bear on earthly riches, but on Jesus "demeaning" himself for the sake of humans. That's my take, from it briefly. His message pertaining to the marginalized in society being first and all...
Other than that, the poster reminded me of a pastor who thinks that out-of-context verses can be used to apply to any situation they want and become the "lesson of the week". "Jesus confirmed that the man was lying"? Please.... I am so glad you replied, and not myself. I might have lost it ha ha. I am getting sick to death with the anti-Semitic theologies of those who so desperately wish to believe they are the "New Israel". It's very disconcerting to see Christian Supersessionism alive and well among some.
Evidently from events in history, it was Mark, himself. We know his uncle was close to all the 12 disciples. So was Mark's mother. So when they went off to the Garden, Mark evidently threw on some clothes and followed.
Could you give some background to the events in history that identify Mark and his mother and uncle and their relations with the disciples? I'm not contesting, this, I'd just like you to save me a bit of work. I gather that you are thinking of Mary's house in the city as the place of the last supper and so the young man was in a position to follow them. There are some problems with this, but some kind of plot can always be concocted to account for it.
Quote:
When soldiers c.f. and, Mark ran. Not completely naked, but without an OUTER garment.
Yes, I had wondered whether this related to an outer -garment and 'naked' really referred to just wearing his drawers or whatever Leviticus prescribed, underneath.
I'm afraid that won't do. The man (with great possessions) has kept all the commandments - which Jesus accepts. He needs only one thing. You can find this in Matthew 19. 16, by the way. which shows up the deceptive and rather clumsy cherry -picking of finding a totally unrelated earlier verse connected with Jesus denouncing the Pharisees and scribes and their rites. You could also have found this is mark 7.6 in the same un -related context
It says that the only thing the man lacked was to give up possessions, job, family, everything other than the church. I won't labour the import of the horrible message being given out, but will just say that, as an atheist, I have more respect for the bible than you do. I respect what it says and I do not dream of cobbling together unrelated bits of text to try to make it fit what I would like it to say.
The implications of that are equally horrible, because it means that the young man could give up his possessions if God had willed it. That he cannot is because God has 'hardened his heart'. Another good man condemned to hell, even before he was born. Not because he was rich - God (according to you) could have accomplished this. The only reason he wouldn't is because he was Jewish.
Interesting interpretation. I disagree, but de gustibus non disputandem est.
This particular incident is the center for my own case that Jesus was anti rich, anti wealth, and would be furious at churches whose bank accounts overflow. Add to this incident the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the epistle of James, the incident of the driving of the money changers from the temple, and bye bye capitalism and free market economies.
As to the bolded part above. I dont think that Jesus was speaking literally. Rather, He was expressing a form of the greatest commandment - God first, then love of neighbor (as in fellow humans, including family) second. JMHO.
Interesting interpretation. I disagree, but de gustibus non disputandem est.
This particular incident is the center for my own case that Jesus was anti rich, anti wealth, and would be furious at churches whose bank accounts overflow. Add to this incident the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the epistle of James, the incident of the driving of the money changers from the temple, and bye bye capitalism and free market economies.
As to the bolded part above. I dont think that Jesus was speaking literally. Rather, He was expressing a form of the greatest commandment - God first, then love of neighbor (as in fellow humans, including family) second. JMHO.
Interim ethics, perhaps - only applicable since he believed the world to be ending very soon.
Interestingly, rich people could not join the church until the apology written by Clement: The Salvation of the Rich, which opened the doors to wealthy Christian converts. So I think you're right - Jesus WOULD be horrified, but even more so at the slightest bit of money.... I think he meant what he said, if he said it.
A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.
(mark 14:51-52, NRSV)
He may have been wearing a linen cloth before being seized, but obviously he gave them "the slip" - literally, and ran off naked. Completely.
Your usage of terms such as "evidently" paint a picture, but nowhere do you state why it is "evidently" Mark who was the young man, besides pure speculation.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't think the individual was anyone concrete, but a symbol of the unfaithfulness of Jesus' followers. Looking for an individual is like looking for an actual real person in the figure of Abel, whose name means "breath of air, vapor, nothingness" and was invented merely to demonstrate that his short life was ended short, like a mere breath of air. He left nothing behind except a story, and probably never existed.
I disagree with your take, my friend. I believe that Mark inserted this particular incident as true, and as something that happened to him as a young man.
I do not believe that Mark was creating a literary work, but was adding a bit of humanity to his composition which included representations of the wisdom of Jesus (I believe that contemporary scholars tend to agree that there was a document of the sayings of Jesus in circulation post 70 AD) and the life of Jesus as told by Peter (post 70 BC or later) as well as Peter's perspective at the time.
Again, there is little that is provable in the modern historical sense. But we have to deal with what we have, and there is no reason to discount Mark as anything other than one man's perspective.
Interesting interpretation. I disagree, but de gustibus non disputandem est.
Thank you, but, to use an atheist maxim, you are entitled to your own likes and dislikes, but not to your own facts. I am not saying what I like, I am following where the evidence leads.
Quote:
This particular incident is the center for my own case that Jesus was anti rich, anti wealth, and would be furious at churches whose bank accounts overflow. Add to this incident the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the epistle of James, the incident of the driving of the money changers from the temple, and bye bye capitalism and free market economies.
The evidence of the gospel text leads me to believe that, whatever Jesus' views of wealth were, the Christian writers were clear on it - whether you were wealthy or had only a prutah to give, you should give it all to the church as 'treasure in heaven'. And don't worry about not having anything to live on - the birds don't have bankrolls, but they manage.
Quote:
As to the bolded part above. I don't think that Jesus was speaking literally. Rather, He was expressing a form of the greatest commandment - God first, then love of neighbor (as in fellow humans, including family) second. JMHO.
I do think that it is to be interpreted literally, I do not hold with this business of blowing a smokescreen over the gunboat and claiming it's Greenpeace. The message is clear. I will spell it out for you: Keeping the commandments (note, not just doing good, but keeping the Jewish mosaic commandments) brings you near the kingdom of God (which hadn't come, so it is the promise of being saved) but will not save you. This was Paul's thesis and the gospel -writers go a bit further. You must give up the mosaic law and embrace Christianity and give up all your wealth, family and social ties to 'follow Jesus', so it is impossible for you to go back. This is the message of the gospels.
To clarify, there is not one word of the gospels that was really said by Jesus. It is all written later to convey the views of post -Pauline Greek Christians.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I gather that you are thinking of Mary's house in the city as the place of the last supper and so the young man was in a position to follow them. There are some problems with this, but some kind of plot can always be concocted to account for it.
