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: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

I should correct again the previous conclusions of this thread, in view of new readings about this enigmatic Apollos.

my assumption is that John the Baptist, while he basically never existed (being probably a Gnostic hallucination), was judaized by Jews not-Christians as the fictious author of an Apocalypticist text written during the Jewish War in 70 CE: the original Jewish version of the Book of Revelation.

It was a Jewish document.

It attacked the early Christians. ALL the early Christians.

Buw why did it attack the early Christians ?

Because they were abandoning the observance of the Noahide Laws.

They were going against the decision of the first concil of Jerusalem, originally a Jewish concil, not a Christian concil.

Against the prohibition of blood, of meats for idols, against porkeia (not porneia).

In the pauline Epistles, again, there is no trace of rival Christians who wanted that Paul should follow the 7 Laws of Noah.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

...Now we come to Apollos:

Acts 18:24-26:

24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

The thesis is that Apollos was the original actor of the same following episode, and not Paul:

Acts 19:8-10
8 Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. 9 But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. 10 This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.

The evidence of the fact that Apollos "entered the synagogue" in Acts 19:8 and not, absolutely not, Paul, is an interpolation with repetition:

18:26:
He began to speak boldly in the synagogue.

19:8:
entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there

Hence the original text, without the naive interpolation replacing the false Paul in the place of the original Apollos, is the following:

24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue,

for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. 9 But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Apollos left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. 10 This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.

This is the birth certificate of the Euhemerization of Jesus:

Apollos "taught about Jesus accurately": this means that immediately before him, the Christians know only vaguely the life of Jesus, not in the detail. Not "accurately".

In other words, they were without a Gospel. Apollos was the first to give them a Gospel.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Acts 6:14:
For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us

It is on this same source used by Acts that Mark 14:57-59 is based:

Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

The same source was used by the Mandean tradition:

"I devastate and I rebuild,
I demolish and I build my temple again."

(Book of John 273-277)

Hence "Mark" was denying a previous story where Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple.

That prophecy was preserved in proto-John 2:19-20:

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?”

THe text adds:
21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body

...but it is an interpolation to neutralize the disturbing reality of that prophecy (in a previous story).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

In proto-Luke aka Mcn, Jesus is condamned to want the destruction of the Law. Hence the catholic "Luke" (editor) omitted both the Jesus's intention and the accusation of it at the trial.

In the Gospel of Mark himself it is found exclusively, in the traditional text, this phrase of Jesus on the Temple (13: 2):

“Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another;

but the Latin manuscript k which is perhaps closer to the original than the Greek text, adds :

«And after 3 days another temple will be erected, that is not from hands of man».

Hence the contradiction in our Mark: Jesus is condamned for something he didn't say, while according to Latin Mark k, Jesus said really that the temple will be destroyed and rebuilt, hence confirming the truth of the accusation against him at the trial.

The destruction of the temple is stricto sensu the destruction of the Torah.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:29 am Hence the contradiction in our Mark: Jesus is condamned for something he didn't say, while according to Latin Mark k, Jesus said really that the temple will be destroyed and rebuilt, hence confirming the truth of the accusation against him at the trial.
it is a real enigma, indeed. The more embarrassing thing would be that the mss k is older than the Greek version. Jesus said really (I mean: in a previous story) that the reconstruction of the temple will be a future event. This embarrassment of the editor reveals that it is not a Catholic thing to say, that the temple will be rebuilt. More precisely:

That the future new temple:
  • Is not the body of Jesus (he is without a body)
  • Is not the Jewish temple
About this "Mark" was strongly embarrassed.

I think Mark 14 reports the original embarrassing prophecy:

“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’”

"Not made with hands" means: is a divine temple, not the Jewish temple. But then the Jewish temple was never divine. Even if "Mark" invented a Jesus who purified violently the temple.

Finding these embarrassing traces of radical anti-demiurgism, I wonder about the real intelligence of who argues for Mark's absolute priority.

My definitive vote is for proto-John.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson »

Giuseppe --

Rather, this confirms that after the Herodians are overthrown and a High Priest of "...greater Piety and Purity" is installed (Probably Hasmonean, of Eleazar or Ithamar), the Temple will be Re-Created, not as an Edifice to the Glory of Herod (See: "Woman Bent Over 18 Years", Josephus describing the Temple opening on the anniversary of the ascension of Herod), but as a Temple in its Original Sense.

The 4 BCE Passover falls on the last days of Bilgah's Weekly Service. At the end of the third day is the Sabbath Rotation where Immer will Preside.

The Coup is to be finished by the Revolutionaries of Immer. They will Consecrate the Temple - a NEW Temple, not built with human hands on the Sabbath that begins their Week of Service.

This explains the Puzzles of "And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie" (Mark) and "John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'" (GJohn).

This Story was rewritten, Transvalued with the Original Meanings LOST.

Things would be a lot easier for you if you would only examine this idea.

CW
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Charles Wilson wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:30 am Giuseppe --

Rather, this confirms that after the Herodians are overthrown and a ...
no, no, you are totally wrong.
Acts 6:14 fixes the point about the meaning of the destruction of the old temple, for the same story found so embarrassing by "Mark":

For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us

The equation is strong:

Destroy the temple == Destroy Moses.

All your high priests, dear Charles, are totally unable to destroy Moses.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson »

Acts 6: 1 - 15 (RSV):
[1] Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.
[2] And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.
[3] Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty.
[4] But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."
[5] And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch'orus, and Nica'nor, and Ti'mon, and Par'menas, and Nicola'us, a proselyte of Antioch.
[6] These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them.
[7] And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.
[8] And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.
[9] Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyre'nians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cili'cia and Asia, arose and disputed with Stephen.
[10] But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke.
[11] Then they secretly instigated men, who said, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God."
[12] And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council,
[13] and set up false witnesses who said, "This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law;
[14] for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us."
[15] And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

Here, Giuseppe, is where we will never agree (...and that's OK.). This Scene is a Set Piece, with a Container written around the VERY Historical descriptions. As such, verse 14 is a Deflection, something to take the focus away from the audacious rewrite of History that is found at this point in Acts.

v1: This section STARTS with indirection. Subject of the the sentence is ostensibly "...the Hellenists". It is actually stating that the Jews are killing Greeks (probably here the Story of the Lunatic being told to go to The Decapolis). They will be dealt with.

v2: The Caesars find the food and "Serve Tables". For example, Vespasian is about to starve Rome out. The Legions will "Preach the Word" (Imagine turning down a Job in the New Religion! There is something else going on here..)

v3: "Pick out a New Caesar!" The 12 (Legions) will Swear Allegiance to these 7 (Through time)

v5: Follow this List. Who was "Acolyte of Antioch" (Or "Hero of Antioch")? That would be "OCTAVIAN" dba Augustus. "A great temple to Jupiter Capitolinus rose on Silpius, probably at the insistence of Octavian" - Ever Politicized Wiki-P. (There is more here than meets the eye).

Who was Stephen? A Piso, the "Four Day emperor", Fruigi Piso.

Which leads to "...the face of an angel": That would be another Piso, Galerianus. See Tacitus, Histories, Book 4:

"The murder of Calpurnius Galerianus caused the utmost consternation. He was a son of Caius Piso, and had done nothing, but a noble name and his own youthful beauty made him the theme of common talk; and while the country was still unquiet and delighted in novel topics, there were persons who associated him with idle rumours of Imperial honours. By order of Mucianus he was surrounded with a guard of soldiers. Lest his execution in the capital should excite too much notice, they conducted him to the fortieth milestone from Rome on the Appian Road, and there put him to death by opening his veins.

Many people find Acts suspect. They are correct in being wary of this Composition. It is barely concealed History - ROMAN History. You may quote Acts in support of a "Jesus Thesis" at your peril. The Subjects of Acts are "Mucianus", Procurator of Syria and the Star Struck 12th Legion ( http://www.josephus.org/warChronology2.htm Compare the March through Lydda and etc. with the descriptions in early Acts).

You can't use the Anti-Moses tirade of Acts 6 and 7 as a basis for a Historical Argument of the Gnosticism you require.

We'll never agree here, Giuseppe, but know there is a different Understanding. As always, you should consider the Historical as an explanation before the Metaphysical. You may see the Historical as giving rise to the Metaphysical but, at least here, there is a giant chasm in getting from one to the other.

CW
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Dear Charles Wilson,

I don't change my ideas about Barabbas and Paul and Marcion.

I don't like to talk with who has distorted views about Marcion.

But I can concede you an information about Paul that may be interesting for you:

Paul was really a Roman citizen.

The evidence is that the Acts stop themselves precisely before the expected trial of the Roman Paul before the emperor.

The sudden ending of Acts is expected if their author was embarrassed by the fact that Paul was condemned and beheaded in Rome, in the original ending.

This was an embarrassing thing to say, that Paul, despite of his being a Roman Citizen, was even condemned by authorites: the evidence of the radical anti-Paganism/anti-Romanism of the new religion.

Therefore: Paul was a Roman, too.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:28 amI don't change my ideas about Barabbas and Paul and Marcion.
Fine with me.
I don't like to talk with who has distorted views about Marcion.
All I know about Marcion is what I read in the papers.
Paul was really a Roman citizen.
We certainly agree here.
The evidence is that the Acts stop themselves precisely before the expected trial of the Roman Paul before the emperor.
I believe that "Paul" was based on Mucianus. Mucianus was Suffect/Consul through around 75 where he disappears from the record.

Thus:
The sudden ending of Acts is expected if their author was embarrassed by the fact that Paul was condemned and beheaded in Rome, in the original ending.
...is incorrect, in my view. Paul/Mucianus returns to Rome. Mucianus loved Titus and the Origination of Titus Worship comes from Mucianus. Domitian poisons Titus and takes over the creation of the Emperor Worship Motif: The Father, the Son and the newly created "Holy Spirit". Domitian holds the pen last - he thinks - and the change from "Mucianus" to the "Saul/Paul" character is made - "His name shows that he had passed by adoption from the gens Mucia to the gens Licinia". (Wiki-P, from Dictionary of Roman Names...). Mucianus disappears and therefore so must Paul. The New Religion continues to be created after the death of Domitian - "The Holy Spirit", after Domitian's Damnatio.
Therefore: Paul was a Roman, too.
Yes, yes, yes.

CW
Post Reply