Christianity Explored Course Update

[modeller]

I went to the first session of St Marks gospel which as I'm sure you know starts with the prophecy of Isiaah, on which the Christain myth depends.
I told them the whole prophecy is a lie and a fabrication, which made me very popular, at least with the other students.

[Clanad]

I'm not sure I understand your statement... sorry for my denseness, but could you explain about Mark's Gospel starting with the Isaiah prophecy? I'm sure you have a good basis for declaring it a lie and fabrication, but a bit of explanation would go a long way towards understanding your position. Thanks!

[SirOracle]

I too am mystified by your posting modeller.

I always understood that this forum was for questions and would like to know what exactly your question is. It seems to me to to be a statement of your imagined heroism telling the class that this gospel "is a lie and a fabrication".

[shoota]

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Culture/Religion-and-Spirituality/Question1283385.html

[SirOracle]

Thank you shoota.
If the OP had posted on his original thread then I could have saved a little of my time.

[naomi24]

Posting an update is reasonable, but I too would like to know what reasons you gave for telling them the whole prophecy is a lie and a fabrication. Without explaining how and why you reached that conclusion, your response means nothing.

[idiosyncrasy]

While the good news according to Mark would interest and benefit Jewish readers, apparently it was not written specifically for them. It seems to have been composed primarily for non-Jewish readers, especially the Romans.

The account contains explanations that would not have been necessary for Jewish readers. It indicates that the Jordan was a river and shows that the temple could be seen from the Mount of Olives. (Mr 1:5; 13:3) It mentions that the Pharisees practiced “fasting” and that the Sadducees “say there is no resurrection.” (2:18; 12:18) This Gospel also explains that the Passover victim was sacrificed on “the first day of unfermented cakes” and that “Preparation” was “the day before the sabbath.”

It is true that the account does refer to Isaiah, but only in the fact that it shows the fulfilment in John the Baptist being the forerunner of Jesus Christ. But this would also include the same prophecy in Malachi. However, as you read through the gospel account you will see that it also refers back to other prophecies.

As Mark was not one of the apostles nor a close associate of Jesus Christ most of his information is from Peter who was, and therefore Mark gives more descriptive insights than the other gospel writers.

[AB Editor]

I am also interested in what you actually said.

[jomifl]

Yes GL, you can.

[jomifl]

My above post was a reply to GL's apparently inoffensive post which has been removed.

[steg]

don't see the point, but if it made you feel good.....

[modeller]

I didn't add this post to my original because it was too far back . That's why I said update.
However : St Mark's gospel starts with Isiaah's :

I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”[c]—
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”[d]
Which they claim is all about John the Baptist and the baptism of Christ.

The first point is first half was not written by Isiaah.
I't was written by Malachi 3:1 about 400 BC and was in response to the lax behaviour of the populous.

The second part was written much earlier about 800 BC by Isaiah in a different area and again nothing to do with JB and JC.

q

[naomi24]

Surely the identity of the original author is irrelevant. No point in blinding people with 'science'. The fact is the prophecy exists, and it's a simple task for any writer to construct a story that appears to confirm its accuracy. It's a method that can be demonstrated to have been commonly used by the gospel writers.

[modeller]

cont Quite simply the gospel writers had trawled back hundreds of years of scriptures to find a prophecy to fit in with baptism of Christ . They couldn't find anything so they cobbled together two bits of quotations 400 years apart to try to make it appear to mean what they wanted.
The ridiculous thing is those two quotations and the false composite are printed in the NIV bible today.

I had an email from a local vicar today saying I was right but in mitigation he said it was common practice at the time of Christ for quotations to be combined, to convey the church's message. To me the whole thing is a sham. Perjury is not too strong a word.

[naomi24]

The two parts may have been cobbled together, but either part alone could have been interpreted in the same way. A prophecy that allegedly foretold the arrival of John the Baptist would still exist.

[modeller]

Quite right Naomi . The false fabricated prophecy exists and is being used as a corner stone of the faith. We were given some ' homework ' including what it said about Christ.
Nowadays our newspapers pick odd out of context sentences said by politicians to discredit them but the bible takes it a step further and uses different sentences from different people and rearranges the order.
In the 'Isaiah ' the last quote was put first to try to make it appear more authentic.
One of the course speakers , who translates bibles , was stumped by some of my other questions and admitted that when translating they omitted difficult bits and just put across the gist of the story.

[modeller]

Naomi if you read Malachi ( Day of Judgement ) and Isaiah 40 Comfort for Gods people ) from which those extracts were made. They were relating to events at that time nothing to do with hundreds years in the future.

Of course with strong enough imagination you can interpret anything to mean anything you want it to.

[jomifl]

And of course you can rearrange letters to mean whate you want too..

[chakka35]

There are many claims in the gospels that an incident is fulfilling an Old Testament prophesy but they are never true. The Jewish OT did not prophesy an supernatural son of God who would perform miracles, which is why Judaism has always rejected Christianity.

The best-known is that line from Isaiah which is so beautifully rendered in Handel's Messiah: 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel, God With Us'.

First of all 'virgin' is mistranslation of the Hebrew word 'almah' which actually means 'a young spinster'. The Hebrew for 'virgin' is 'betulah'.

If you read the whole passage you will see that Isaiah is telling King Ahaz that if a woman had a baby tomorrow then by the time he became old enough to know right from wrong Ahaz's enemies (the kings of Syria and Israel) would be overcome.

Nothing to do with Jesus, but the Church still quotes it, relying on the fact that most Christians don't read their bibles.

[modeller]

chaka I also remember reading that the word 'almah' had the meaning of a childless young married woman so Mary could have been have been an
'almah' even when married until after the birth. In which case she could have had a normal conception and still have had a virgin birth .
If that is right all first births are virgin births .