So far, I find your “take” neither original, instructive nor entertaining.
But hey, keep tryin’, practice makes perfect and all that.
I think you mean “ROFL”. 
Mine matches the original better phonetically: “roll”, “LOL”.
I deny it, so apparently it’s not as undeniable as you think. As for the website that you linked, I was unsurprised to see that it contained neither scholarly material nor references to scholarly material.
Other than that, I’m in agreement with the others who have dismissed your commentary as superficial and uninformed. Have a nice day.
Oof! Tough crowd.
I am fairly sure I have understood those parts I’ve read. If you think there are parts where I’ve failed to understand the text, or analysed it superficially, feel free to point out where.
You have written an untruth. That site contains scholarly material and refers to scholarly material. Perhaps you looked at it superficially?
Here’s the link again: New Testament (NRSV)
Chapter 4:
It begins with teaching on the lake. Hopefully the lake was very calm that day! Parable about seeds (btw interested by the google definition of “parable”, what a secular world we live in!) He then explains to the apostles why he tells the public parables:
Either something has been lost in translation… or he is admitting something rather worriesome: he doesn’t want the public to understand, just look and listen; and perhaps then they won’t “turn again”, away from Christianity. As we continue, it’s a bit unclear as to whether the talk is to the apostles or the general public… I’ll just leave that aside. The seed parable is explained, perhaps he should explain which “the word” he means, but I guess it makes sense overall, though there’s quite a risk of people misinterpreting it as saying their lives will only flourish if they receive “the word” (presumably Jesus’/God’s) well. That may be the case nowadays, but not back then. 21-25 could be interpreted many ways, I’ll just say I’m not fond of it (partly for that reason). 26-29, not really sure what it’s saying but “child grooming” comes to mind. 30-32 is okay, but I think they’re cheating here by pretending to use an analogy from nature, when they aren’t (judging by present-day mustard plants anyway). 35-41 Amazing… but what does it tell us… he’s powerful?
Chapter 5:
A quite preposterous tale of demon possession forms the first half of this chapter. Perhaps this bit explains why modern psychiatrists treat their patients like they’re demon-possessed? For example:
Seems like a rad guy to me. Actually, would bruising yourself with stones be an ancient suicide attempt? Maybe he’s doing that because everyone treats him like shit. The other half is some silly magic stuff; why even bother? If we’ve seen that he can do that stuff, why show it over and over? Wouldn’t it be more impressive to see someone healing people through hard work, skill, or compassion?
Chapter 6:
Sequence at the synagogue.
What, like, the people who’ve known them and seen the things they’ve done over their lives? 6-13 sees him giving instructions to the apostles:
Oh, those poor Judeans! And the disciples can cure by touch now?! Or with oil? Again, I’m not worried that it’s stupid; it’s harmful and deceitful. Next, Herod Antipas hears of Jesus.
Classic. Then follows a surely fabricated story in which a young girl tempts Herod with dance into giving her whatever she wants; she and her mother then conspire to have their famous uncle and brother, respectively, John the Baptist, executed - when Herod doesn’t even want to do it. I cannot see how that is anything but hateful to women, and deliberately so. Verses 30 to 46 tell the story of feeding the five-thousand with five loaves and two fishes; more magic that shows he’s powerful and nothing more. Wouldn’t it be better if he used culinary or agricultural skill to feed them? Like found a hidden source of berries, or killed some wild bulls that no one else was brave enough to? In the concluding verses, we’re starting get into some martyrdom stuff - people don’t understand him, they just want to use him selfishly. I guess that’s a part of the gospels I can appreciate, and I can sympathize with such a figure; but I’m certain Christianity has persecuted many real figures of that sort, while lauding a fictional one.
Side note: What does the protagonist look like? No beard or long hair mentioned, the setting seems to be first-century Judea, so maybe I’ll imagine something like this, from about the right period and ethnicity. Yeesh! Maybe that’s too handsome but I’ll go with it. Of course, I’ve read that there is no mention of the beard or long hair in any of the gospels, and he didn’t come to be portrayed like that until about the seventh century, so where did that image come from? Who knows.
Hey The Antichrist, nice to meet you.
I have to say i didn’t find your Christ Mythicist site to be particularly compelling or authoritative (I say this as a fellow mythicist.)
If you are interested in the topic and would like to dive a little deeper into the scholarly side of it you could try listening to Bob Price’s podcasts. See below:
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/biblegeek.php
http://www.thehumanbible.net/
Also, I just wanted to say I am very much enjoying this thread… both the snarking from the peanut gallery, and your postings. Keep it up!
Nothing; “singe,” unlike “burn,” is not a noun.
I wonder whether you even know what scholarly material is. If you think that the website you linked to is scholarly, then I’d guess that you don’t.
Sure. Why not?
You say “I don’t know why the voice is crying out in the wilderness.” It seems rather odd for you to claim that you understand the Gospel of Mark and simultaneously admit that you don’t. Those who are knowledgable about the Bible will immediately recognize a reference to the book of the Prophet Isaiah.
You say that Baptism “seems ridiculous to me”, offer nothing to back it up. If that’s not a superficial statement I don’t know what is. Then you say that “a preist [sic] dipping all the naked babies in cold water seems remarkably like child abuse”, which is factually incorrect. Placing a baby in cold water is not child abuse, so you’re wrong there. (I’m guessing you’re unaware of the fact that nearly all denominations perform Baptism by sprinkling a small amount of water, not by immersion.)
When you say that John is “implying that we ought worship the powerful”, it seems that you’ve completely missed the joke.
Next up you offer this howler: “John the Baptist gets arrested? Shouldn’t Jesus campaign for his release?” Apparently you’re utterly clueless about the differences between the world you grew up in and the ancient Roman world. Ancient Roman provinces were not democracies and there was no campaigning for anything. I’d expect even a child to be aware of that fact.
All those mistakes in just your first two paragraphs of commentary; it’s certainly not looking very good for you.
I hereby decree October as Jesus Month on the dope.
I let you go several posts with your review just to see where you are going. You are seemingly just throwing random things out without any real point. It makes it seem like you are reading the bible for a book report and not for understanding.
For instance:
You responded with:
Another example:
to which you respond:
You make an assertion both times, but give no base to those assertions. What did these verses lead to during history, in your eyes? Did the RCC, for instance, claim that their corruption was guided by God due to the second verse? Are you saying that the corruption of the RCC was biblically driven? Or that RCC priests were just trying to brainwash the congregants based on the schooling that they received in priesty school?
We can’t debate your feelings/initial opinions on what they were saying, as all we can point to on the subject are other opinions and maybe some reasonable objections to certain translations. But there is no authority we can appeal to for something that is couched in metaphor to begin with, which is then translated. Worse, a lot of the metaphors you can find in the bible don’t make sense in our current social milieu. (Go read the Song of Solomon as an example of this. Most of the statements of beauty you see will make you wonder about the early Isrealites.) A lot of the arguing over views is ultimately pointless for this reason.
And, if you want to see more translations (Assuming you aren’t passingly familiar with the originating languages of the Bible) you can always use something like this to see if you can find an English edition more true to the original intent.
If this is going to stay just a “Stream of Consciousness” then it’s really only your feeling or thoughts as you read something new. The best way to approach this is as a personal study. Write down the thoughts you have and then go research them with both like-minded and opposite-minded individuals under either an umbrella discussion with a point (and not “Stream of Consciousness” style) or a point-by-point break down.
Well, I guess that makes April Antichrist month, then.
To be honest, I am enjoying the somewhat naive stream of consciousness responses.
As a former conservative christian who had all the “answers” rammed down his throat by a fundamentalist congregation, I never really had the chance to read the bible with fresh eyes. Even my recent interest and study remain colored by a lot of what passed for “scholarship” to my denomination.
Which doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t help flesh out the context (in the name of fighting ignorance.)
Sure, but nothing indicates that this Antichrist fella is really interested in learning. He’s doing this because he believes that he has an “original take which might be instructive or at least entertaining to those reading.” He’s instructing us; we’re not instructing him.
Mine eyes have seen the coming of the Dark Lord Antichrist
He is humorous and handsome, and he isn’t very nice
We’ll get along just fine if you don’t make him tell you twice
Apocalypse today!
CHORUS:
Gory, gory Armageddon!
Gory, gory Armageddon!
Gory, gory Armageddon!
Apocalypse today!
It’s really most annoying, with the rains of flaming pitch
And the things that bite, and things that burn, and things that sting and itch
But, oh, that Whore of Babylon’s a lusty, royal bitch!
Apocalypse today!
(CHORUS)
It’s really most confusing, with the Horsemen in the skies
And the seven seals, and seven plagues, and lambs with seven eyes
But we get no fun from Jesus, so bring on the Prince of Lies!
Apocalypse today!
(CHORUS)
Don’t quit your day job.
Regards,
Shodan
I was going to tell him to consider getting a night job, too.
The problem is that there’s no context. It’s as if I said. “I believe that God is an evergreen on a mountain, somewhere.” Where do you begin working out the context? You can’t possibly disprove it because you haven’t chainsawed through all of the pine trees on all of the mountains to prove that none of them are omnipotent. And it also has no bearing…on anything, really.
Yes, various religions were corrupt, going back to my previous post’s example, but was that verse used as an appeal to excuse or condone corruption by anyone? If not, then his first thought upon reading is fairly immaterial. If so, let’s see some evidence and discuss or debate it.
I had a similar force-fed younger life. I worked past my issues with Christian teachings by extensive research through multiple sources. Not just Christian sources, but agnostic/atheist and Jewish sources.
Moreover, The Antichrist can be proven to be wrong when he says “I suspect it may just be in there to excuse priests for associating so much with unscrupulous powers.” The Gospel of Mark was written generations before the first Christian priests existed. Nowhere in Mark does Jesus mention the church, or any type of Christian clergy. If Mark had the desire to promote priests, or to encourage people to obey priests, or even to make excuses for priests, surely Mark would have mentioned priests. But he doesn’t. While I’m constantly hearing atheists claim that the Gospel of Mark was written to control people or boss people around or so forth, I’ve never heard any of them address this point.
For anyone who’s interested in an intelligent explication of the New Testament, I’d strongly recommend three books by Garry Wills: What Jesus Meant, What the Gospels Meant, and What Paul Meant.
It’s all explained in The DaVinci Code.
As devil’s advocate, he could have applied a common term to him (priest) to what he perceives as a continuum of faith (Judaism -> Christianity) and that Jesus could have been speaking of the Rabbis of his day.