So in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus was originally just a human that became the adopted son of God at his baptism and had no pre-existence in heaven and w...

So in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus was originally just a human that became the adopted son of God at his baptism and had no pre-existence in heaven and was never part of a Trinity.

If you get rid of all the forged letters of Paul and Peter and the unknown stuff like Hebrews, and fake Gospels Matthew/Luke/John, which was all written long after to alter the story, it becomes clear.

Original Christianity has been long lost and so far corrupted that it has gone from a humble rabbi trying to teach others how to bring about world paradise to pic related.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Ο Σολιταίρ

    >As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
    >The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
    ...
    >And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;
    >And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

    >And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come?
    >And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.
    >But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.

    Just because you want Baby's Bible where there's a parenthetical after every verse ("Jesus is God btw") doesn't mean you can deduce
    >wow, Jesus' birth isn't in Mark???
    >CLEARLY adoptionist

    Mark intimates that John was an* Elijah who prepared the way for the coming of the LORD (literally "Jehovah").
    If you were an educated reader, you'd immediately grasp that the very beginning of Mark is claiming that Jesus is Jehovah God.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Let's put your theory to the test:

      >Mark 10
      17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do so that I may inherit eternal life?” 18 But Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not give false testimony, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth.”

      >Man calls Jesus "good teacher"
      >Jesus says "only God is good"
      >Man recognizes his error that Jesus is not God and stops saying "good" and only calls him "teacher"

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        He is God, and the man was right when he spoke his conscience the first time

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Jesus said otherwise.

          Those are the only two times Mark uses that specific word so examining his usage of it further isn't possible, but Luke has Jesus saying the same thing in Luke 18:19, and Jesus himself calls people "good" using the same word in Luke 6:45 (look at https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g18/kjv/tr/0-1/ for its uses) so the interpretation that Jesus is subtly telling the man that he is God makes much more sense than Jesus - the famed criticizer of hypocrites - breaking his own rule.

          Gospel of Luke is a corruption of Mark that was written decades after.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Gospel of Luke is a corruption of Mark
            Demonstrably false since Paul quotes it in 1 Timothy 5:18, he writes: "For Scripture says…‘The worker deserves his wages.’". That’s a direct quote of Luke 10:7 - it's nowhere in the Old Testament or anywhere else in the New Testament.

            So we know for an absolute fact that the Gospel of Luke has approval from the Apostles.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

            1 Timothy is a forgery, that's why "Paul" says that in it, because it's written by some unknown Christian after the Gospels had been written.

            Saul the Pharisee dedicated to the Tanakh, he would never have called someone's home made Gospel "Scipture". Only the Tanakh was Scripture to him. He also never read any Gospels as they did not exist in his time.

            See, you can only seem to make your point by quoting corruptions and forgeries.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Who do you believe wrote Mark, and why do you believe they are the author?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No idea, no way to prove who wrote it. Could have been Mark, could have been a highly educated Greek for political purposes. It was someone's attempt at writing a biography of Jesus. It may be based on original oral traditions untainted by Paul. Or it could be from one of Paul's churches. Who knows. They probably didn't consider it Scripture or the New Bible Testament at the time they wrote it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And so the LARP collapses. Look your entire point in this thread is that Mark is the only authentic scripture, at least commit to your role.
            You can't though, of course, because any standard for determining the authorship of a document which concludes that Mark wrote Mark must conclude that Luke wrote Luke, Paul wrote the Pauline Letters, and so you're playing a contradiction.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Look your entire point in this thread is that Mark is the only authentic scripture

            No, it is the most accurate to original Christianity and does not teach that Jesus is God or part of a Trinity. Because it is known that Mark is the first Gospel biography and all others copied and corrupted it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it is known
            wow what powerful evidence to bring forward anon, my whole theology must change

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do I really need to explain why Mark is the original Gospel? Do I need to spoon feed you everything?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Give me your best evidence, let's hear it

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are not educated enough to be having this discussion with the elites, I'm sorry. Please exit the thread.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It always feels good to break a LARPer

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The evidence for 1st Timothy being written by Paul is clear. Firstly the letter itself says Paul is the author at the very beginning: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus...to Timothy, my true child in the faith."

            Nobody else ever gives another author for the work. In fact, Eusebius wrote in Ecclesiastical History 3.3.5 that it (among other works) being Paul’s epistle was “well known and undisputed”. (And if there had been dispute, he would have noted it – like he immediately does for Paul supposedly writing Hebrews).

            We also have a lot of ancient writers quoting it and saying Paul is the author. For example, Irenaeus in the preface to book 1 of his Against Heresies wrote “as the apostle says, ‘minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith’”, which is a quote of 1 Timothy 1:4

            And Polycarp clearly holds 1 Timothy as coming from someone authoritative. For example, in his letter, chapter 4 he wrote “’But the love of money is the root of all evils’ [a quote of 1 Timothy 6:10]. Knowing, therefore, that ‘as we brought nothing into the world, so we can carry nothing out’ [a quote of 1 Timothy 6:7]…”.

            I’d strongly suggest reading that chapter and the surrounding text – he quotes Paul’s works time and time again, and 1 Timothy freely among them.

            The fact that Polycarp considered it authoritative tells us a great deal, since he was personally familiar with the disciples. Irenaeus reports in Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 3, section 4 that “Polycarp also was not only instructed by the apostles, and acquainted with many that had seen Christ, but was also appointed by apostles in Asia bishop…”. So if anyone would know whether a document had the backing of the apostles, it’d be the man that had the backing of the apostles!

            Given all this evidence, there’s simply no grounds to be doubting who the author is here. The work says it is by Paul. Everyone else says it is by Paul and that this is undisputed.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The evidence for 1st Timothy being written by Paul is clear. Firstly the letter itself says Paul is the author at the very beginning

            You know how easy that would be to fake and drop in the mailbox dude?

            >All this other cope from people that lived hundreds of years after the fact that were not eyewitnesses and never met any of these authors

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lazy poster for a lazy thread. You really did only read the first sentence. Polycarp knew the Apostles himself and was directly put in his position by then, and Irenaeus was Polycarp's student. The links in this chain are solid as titanium. Clearly you didn't even make it that far though.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is no way to confirm any of that, it's just legend. Go on, prove it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The post you STILL haven't read already did that.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The authorship of First Timothy was traditionally attributed to the Apostle Paul, although in pre-Nicene Christianity this attribution was open to dispute. He is named as the author of the letter in the text (1:1). Nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not the work of Paul, but to an unidentified Christian writing some time in the late-first to mid-second centuries. Most scholars now affirm this view.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can you give any actual evidence for that view, or is your argument purely an appeal to authority?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I shouldn't have started this thread. I wasn't expecting to have to write a book's worth of posts to fight 5 of you at once.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >WHAAAAAAA why won't people just ACCEPT THAT I AM RIGHT
            Sorry mate but, low as the standards on Oyish are, generally you're expected to actually have some evidence for your claims. You know, to actually know something about history.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know more than all of you combined. I thought you'd be on my level and at least know the basics. I wasn't expecting to become your professor.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            sounds like someone is euphoric

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds like someone worships israelites.

            Wearing fedoras and playing Sonic were at one time considered cool. Worshiping crucified israeli rabbis was never seen as cool. That's why Nero started executing all Christians and most people throughout history have been disgusted by their imbecilic behavior and why so many youth today are abandoning that blood magic pedo cult.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Wearing fedoras and playing Sonic were at one time considered cool
            I actually think it is. The issue with the image is the man's poor health, suggesting that he outwardly attempts to maintain an elevated, cool, and sophisticated outward appearance, but this cannot cover the lack of health at its core, which ruins the entire look.
            It illustrates how atheists and their self-proclaimed intelligence (as you very very well demonstrated) really looks to others.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You know how easy that would be to fake and drop in the mailbox dude?
            Do you know what a signature or a seal is moron

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Those are the only two times Mark uses that specific word so examining his usage of it further isn't possible, but Luke has Jesus saying the same thing in Luke 18:19, and Jesus himself calls people "good" using the same word in Luke 6:45 (look at https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g18/kjv/tr/0-1/ for its uses) so the interpretation that Jesus is subtly telling the man that he is God makes much more sense than Jesus - the famed criticizer of hypocrites - breaking his own rule.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Is Jesus good moron?
        It was a rhetorical question, but your sub-human brain can't wrap around it.

        The Old Testament says the Messiah will fear God.

        The Messiah will fear himself? LOL

        Start quoting verses Black person.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Is Jesus good moron?

          According to Jesus himself? No. Only God is good.

          >Start quoting verses
          Isaiah 11:3
          And He will delight in the fear of Yahweh,
          And He will not judge by what His eyes see,
          Nor render a decision by what His ears hear

          That's enough spoon feeding. No more.

          Jesus is not God. Matthew/Luke/John are corruptions. Paul was a fraud. Half his letters are forgeries. Peter was an illiterate fisherman that wouldn't be able to write letters. You are all fricking morons for believing in this ancient horseshit scam.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No. Only God is good.
            * Yes, and he is God.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, the man corrected the error of his ways and stopped calling Jesus good, and Jesus was satisfied with his response.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What you talking about?
            >...“No one is good except God alone.
            > You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not cheat others, honor your father and mother.’”
            >“Teacher,” he replied, “all these I have kept from my youth.”
            >Jesus looked at him, loved him, and said to him,“There is one thing you lack: Go, sell everything you own and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.”
            >But the man was saddened by these words and went away in sorrow, because he had great wealth.
            >Then Jesus looked around and said to His disciples,“How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”

            He tells the man to follow him because he is the God who is the source of these commandments, the man can't accept it and Jesus uses him as a warning.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He tells the man to follow him because he is the God who is the source of these commandments

            Are you fricking moronic? Do you just inject your own imagination into the text of the story?

            >"Good teacher, what shall I do"
            >Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."
            >And he said to him, "~~*Teacher*~~, I have kept

            HE DROPPED THE "GOOD". HE DROPPED THE "GOOD"! CHRISTIANS WILL COPE AND SEETHE AND TWIST AND TURN OVER THIS UNTIL THE END OF THEIR DAYS! HAHAHAHAHA!

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >HE DROPPED THE "GOOD". HE DROPPED THE "GOOD"!
            Because he doesn't actually believe in God, and Jesus proves it. He believes in following rules and considers that religion. When Jesus asks him to sacrifice his wealth for the sake of the God that he supposedly believes, he can't do it.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >guy: "Jesus you are good"
        >Jesus: "only God is good"
        >guy: doesn't take back what he said
        >Jesus: doesn't deny being good
        huh, I only have an I.Q. of 3, so I can't figure out what the author is implying here...

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          The guy did take back what he said in the next sentence when he stopped addressing Jesus as "good teacher" and stated calling him just "teacher".

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Mark 1
      1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
      2 just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
      “Behold, I am sending My messenger before you,
      Who will prepare your way;
      3 The voice of one calling out in the wilderness,
      ‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
      Make his paths straight!’”

      >before you
      >Who will prepare your way

      Who's God talking to? Himself? He prepared his own way and told himself? He's talking to the human messiah, you fricking KJV Greek Textus Receptus namegay moron.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Who's God talking to? Himself? He prepared his own way and told himself?
        The Father to the Son

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          So God is talking to himself. Interesting how you go straight to the Trinity which can only be constructed by using all the corrupt and forged texts I listed in the OP but can't be found in Mark, just as I said.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So God is talking to himself
            God the Father is talking to God the Son

      • 5 months ago
        Ο Σολιταίρ

        What are you asking?
        There is no other way to interpret the opening of Mark; which consciously uses those two quotations of the prophets to frame the baptism of Jesus by John.
        If you admit that Mark actually implies Jesus' divinity; but you simply take issue with the entire concept, then fine.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          The human Messiah came as Yahweh's representative to do his will. The Messiah was not Yahweh.

          • 5 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            But he is, though?

            >The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord (Jehovah), make his paths straight.
            John the Baptist was the Elijah declaring this as foretold in Malachi.
            That's what Mark says.

            Do note:
            >I send my messenger before THY face...
            It's impossible to interpret Mark 1 as saying anything other than Jesus is the prophesied Jehovah whom Elijah/the messenger prepares the way for.

          • 5 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            excuse me; Isaiah and Malachi.
            you get what i mean

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Old Testament says the Messiah will fear God.

            The Messiah will fear himself? LOL

          • 5 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            >Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
            >In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            His name is about how the LORD is righteous, not that he is the LORD.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Incorrect
            No other character except God has the full Tetragrammaton (yhvh) as part of their given name
            Always “yah” or “el” for “phrasal” Hebrew given names.
            For example; it’s “Hezekiah” not “Hezekiahovah”
            It’s “Isaiah” not “isaiahovah”
            “the Lord our righteousness” in Jeremiah transliterated is “jehovahtsidkenu” which is not similar to Hebrew given names at all. Because it was a taboo to use God’s full name for anything other than God.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The name is referring to and honoring the Father, Yahweh.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            God the Son will fear God the Father

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why would God be afraid of God?

            LOL fricking moronic

          • 5 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            >Definition of fear
            >archaic: to regard with reverence

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nah dude. This cope isn't going to save you.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    hey Bart Ehrman, didn't know you were posting on Oyish

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sup

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ehrman doesn't go this far. People who have barely read him do.

      https://i.imgur.com/UkvhClJ.jpg

      So in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus was originally just a human that became the adopted son of God at his baptism and had no pre-existence in heaven and was never part of a Trinity.

      If you get rid of all the forged letters of Paul and Peter and the unknown stuff like Hebrews, and fake Gospels Matthew/Luke/John, which was all written long after to alter the story, it becomes clear.

      Original Christianity has been long lost and so far corrupted that it has gone from a humble rabbi trying to teach others how to bring about world paradise to pic related.

      >If you ignore Paul
      >If you ignore Peter
      >If you ignore apocrypha
      >If you ignore Matthew
      >If you ignore Luke
      >If you ignore John
      >If you ignore many passages in Mark
      >Then you could make a case.....
      Great case.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, all corruptions and forgeries, which is the scholarly consensus.

        Half of Paul's letters are forgeries. All of Peter's are forgeries. Matthew, Luke, John are rewrites of Mark by anonymous authors.

        You just accept every ancient anonymous document as absolute historical fact so long as it was packaged into the "Bible" in the 4th century. LMAO fricking idiot.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >scholarly consensus
          False.
          >Matthew, Luke, John are rewrites of Mark by anonymous authors.
          This is such a hilarious misunderstanding of the actual scholarly consensus I can now rest in peace that you indeed haven't read the scholarly literature.

          You just accept ever TheAmazingAtheist facebook meme. LMAO good luck

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >scholarly consensus
            >False

            It is the scholarly consensus. Your TikTok pastor that told you the opposite is not a scholar. LMAO good lick with Jesus coming back and you getting raptured into the sky, I'm sure that's going to happen any day now.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            [...]

            consensus

            >the scholarly consensus
            False.

            You quite obviously have no arguments, my dear. Even Ehrman, who is known for being Christianity-critical, doesn't conclude this in his works.
            You're backed only by seething.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ehrman says that the Gospels are anonymous works by non-eyewitnesses.

            This is a pic of your future. Still waiting for Jesus to return. And you won't be going to heaven when you die, it's a myth. Time to grow up. Santa in the sky isn't real.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Still waiting for Jesus to return.
            70 AD
            Jesus literally returned and was seen with the angels in the skies over Israel https://tektonticker.blogspot.com/2022/05/today-i-have-special-guest-piece-by.html

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah right

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And to a degree he might be technically correct! Some gospels or their parts were most likely written down by people who have received them from the Tradition, which Ehrman never denies is oral to begin with. Old Testament worked the same way.

            Ehrman never warrants the list of ifs like in

            Ehrman doesn't go this far. People who have barely read him do.

            [...]
            >If you ignore Paul
            >If you ignore Peter
            >If you ignore apocrypha
            >If you ignore Matthew
            >If you ignore Luke
            >If you ignore John
            >If you ignore many passages in Mark
            >Then you could make a case.....
            Great case.

            lol
            Time to grow up. You actually have to read books to cite.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hello there.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Time for conspiracy theories already? Well let's have it lol

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Richard Carrier is a PhD Historian with peer-reviewed work that is still unrefuted.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why refute what was never proven? His work is peer reviewed but his general conclusions are fringe and speculative. That is the review lol

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If I just ignore the counter arguments it's unrefuted

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are the counter arguments peer-reviewed and published? No. Your YouTube Pastor Dickweed has nothing on Carrier.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *