Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 6598
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:57 pm

Evidence in this sense is that :
  • It is a fact that the entire gospel of Mark is pure paulinism put in allegory.
  • It is a fact that John and better the "Baptism of John" is totally alien to Paul and pure paulinism.
  • It is a fact that somewhere in Acts (the learned reader knows what I refer to) a guy named Apollos, who knew only the "baptism of John", was paulinized by Paul himself. Now, even if it is not a fact but pure fiction, it reflects the historical conversion en masse of followers of the "Baptism of John" to paulinism.
Hence the best solution explaining the gospel of Mark is that it was written by a follower of John the Baptist who was paulinized sincerely. I will call him "Mark" in absence of better labels. This "Mark" was paulinized but preserved the his previous worship of John and his Baptism.

I think this is a great finding.

John means "YHWH gives grace".

Jesus means "YHWH gives salvation".

"Mark" passed from exaltation of the grace to expectation of salvation.

From gnosis to apocalypticism.

You would call this judaization in action.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6598
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:11 pm

Now, even if "Mark" has the his previous deity/hero/guru John the Baptist transformed in a precursor of the new Mark's deity/hero (not guru) Jesus, he gives at any case a first place to John insofar John has come before Jesus. In this he preserved a particular worship for the his previous deity/hero/guru (John).

Now, Jesus coming to John's Baptism means, historically speaking, that the John's followers as "Mark" himself, were paulinized by the apostles of the pauline Jesus Christ. By becoming the Baptizer of Jesus without knowing Jesus, John came to know velim nolim the Baptism of Jesus. He is, as Apollos, paulinized eo ipso, insofar he knows now also the Baptism of Jesus.

But Apollos is a gentile. And Paul came from Judea.

Therefore the "Baptism of John" was a gentile thing that was paulinized/judaized.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6598
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:20 pm

Paul concedes an important fact:


I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow...

(1 Corinthians 3:6-9)

Apollos watered the seed means that Apollos baptized the seed. Hence even the historical Paul connected Apollos with the water of the Baptism, and we can presume that the latter was just what was called later as "Baptism of John".

Now, Earl Doherty is right to say that Apollos was a proto-gnostic. He emphasized a Jesus the Revealer rather than the pauline Jesus the Redeemer. The learned reader knows where I take this info from Doherty's site web.

Therefore "Mark" could have learned from that Apollos the his vice to vehicle secret knowledge by allegories. Even if "Mark" is selling 100% allegorized paulinism and not apollonism.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6598
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:30 pm

Basically, as any converter, "Mark" preserves something of the belief of his previous sect (apollonism), but he put it in the service of the beliefs of new sect (paulinism), merging the two traditions but giving priority to his new belief.

So to know what was apollonism, we should reverse the order of cause-effect in any point in Mark where Jesus precedes John in doing something of "new".
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6598
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:37 pm

A typical example of this reversal in action is the episodes of miracolous feeding. Who comes before? The feeding with 12 loaves or with 7 ?

Mark has the Jewish feeding come before the Gentile feeding. We should reverse the order: Apollonism was connected with the Gentile feeding but the pauline "Mark" gave it the second place to give priority to the Jewish feeding.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6598
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:43 pm

Another example:

Apollonism had the original crucifixion of glory in what is now portrayed as the Transfiguration episode.

Mark has that original "crucifixion of glory" (preached by Apollos) preceding (and giving tribute to) the his crucifixion (one where the true glory is, in pauline terms, the Crucified Christ in the climax of the his sufferings). As collateral effect, the original crucifixion of glory was obscured at all.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6598
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:50 pm

Another example still:

Apollos preached Jesus Barabbas ("Jesus the Son of Father"). In this case "Mark" is explicit: the true Jesus is the Jesus called Christ by Paul.

This is enough, in my eyes, to consider Apollos as an adorer of a Father different from the god of the Jews. By logical implication, Apollos hated the god of the Jews.

Therefore "Mark" was a Gnostic hater of YHWH who was converted to Judaism by Pauline apostles of the Christ.

Working accordingly.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Ethan
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:15 pm
Location: England

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Ethan » Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:36 pm

Mark would be the fictional character assigned as the writer of Mark's Gospel, perhaps the Gospel was written by a Woman and since Women are evil cos ate a fruit, the female authors are covered up and assigned Male pseudonyms.

Magna Leaena (Magdalene) a probable candidate for the authorship, historically known as Fulvia, an aristocratic Roman woman who lived during the Late Roman Republic.
https://vivliothikiagiasmatos.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/joseph-yahuda-hebrew-is-greek.pdf

User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 839
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by arnoldo » Thu Nov 28, 2019 4:26 pm

Was Apollos learned in philoinism [sic]?
philo.png
philo.png (79.73 KiB) Viewed 196 times
source

Giuseppe
Posts: 6598
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was "Mark", just as Apollos, learned in paulinism?

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:40 am


When one of you says, “I am a follower of Paul,” and another says, “I follow Apollos,” aren’t you acting just like people of the world?

(1 Cor 3:4)

It is clear here, per above, that the followers of Apollos claimed, as such, to be not of this world, i.e. not of the creator of this world, of the evil demiurge. So Paul is saying that their actions are human too human, despite of their claim of being a Gnostic elite.



The enigma that has to be explained remains the connection between the "Baptism of John" and the apollonism.


The likes of Greg Doudna (John the Baptist as Hyrcanus II) are probable unable to explain that connection. No wonder I see Doudna as an Eisenman 2.0, only slightly moderate. In my experience, who says that Jesus was X and John was Y, is a false mythicist but a real historicist (the precise reason I don't forgive Neil for placing Unterbrink among the mythicists).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply