The Gospel of Mark was dedicated to Marcus Antonius.

M

Medicine*Woman

Jesus: Mythstory--Not History!
Valued Senior Member
*************
M*W: According to the works of Marcus Antonius (Marc Antony), no man by the simple name of Mark was the author of the gospel. Marcus Antonius was the patron of which this gospel was written. This gospel was based on the Vita Divi Iulii (Life of Julian, the Divine), and was authorized by Marcus Antonius.

The connection here was the beginning of the Civil War between Gaius Caesar and Pompeius. It's correlation was the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. The comparison between Julius Caesar and Mark's gospel began with the crossing of the Rubicon compared to Jesus' crossing of the Jordan River. The question begs, was Jesus really a stand-in for Julius Caesar? Was this true life as occured historically? Or was this this some kind of play within a play? After all, art imitates life. Was Jesus a savior, or was he just a protagonist?
 
Lawdog said:
Where are you getting this bizarro stuff?
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: From a little thing called "reading." I've been researching the connection between the Roman Emperors' influence on the NT. Here's some references:

Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, by Joseph Atwill.

The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity begin with a mythical Christ? Challenging the existence of an historical Jesus, by Earl Doherty.

Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion, by Ahmed Osman.

The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth That Could Change Everything, by Brian D. McLaren.

Et tu, Judas? Then Fall Jesus, by Gary Courtney.

Jesus was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity: An Investigative Report, by Francesco Carotta.
 
You are reading material that has no professional merit. It is trash scholarship. why dont you at least read some traditional scholarship, Arnold Toynbee, etc. and get a balanced opinion? The great thing about the older scholars is that they had a vast range of knowledge and most were not trying to get across some agenda.

Or better yet, why not read some of the original sources, ie. Josephus, Plutarch, Tacitus, or Cassius Dio, and decide for yourself, instead of being prejudiced by scholars first. You know, the only reason they write that crap is to get published so they can keep their university seats.
 
Lawdog said:
You are reading material that has no professional merit. It is trash scholarship. why dont you at least read some traditional scholarship, Arnold Toynbee, etc. and get a balanced opinion? The great thing about the older scholars is that they had a vast range of knowledge and most were not trying to get across some agenda.

Or better yet, why not read some of the original sources, ie. Josephus, Plutarch, Tacitus, or Cassius Dio, and decide for yourself, instead of being prejudiced by scholars first. You know, the only reason they write that crap is to get published so they can keep their university seats.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: I don't read "trash scholarship." Just because you don't understand it, because you've been brainwashed, does not mean it is "trash scholarship."

FYI, I have read the Bible, both OT and NT, and I have read many concordances. I went to a Christian university, where I studied religion, and I converted to Catholicism and taught catechism for 20+ years. I've visited The Vatican and just about all the catholic shrines in Europe.

Biblical scholars and archeologists who write books are peer-reviewed... then they get published. In the academic arena, it is publish or perish. I've spent most of my career in the academic arena writing, editing and publishing.

Coincidentally, scholars now believe Flavius Josephus may have written part of the NT as it follows his style and his written histories.

So, it is you who believes in your biblical pulp fiction, and your continued worthless rhetoric shows you are not intellectually peered to post on this forum.
 
Ok, fine. have it your way. No need to get angry.
I acknowledge your journey for wisdom, your sacrifice for the Church,
and respect your power to discern history, (eventhough I think you are wrong).

About trash scholarship: Why is it that so much trash gets puiblished? all you need to do is walk into Barnes and noble and see the trash everywhere. How can deny that the trend in the past thirty or so years of academia is to 're-interprete' history? Surely there has been advantageous advances because of this, but the majority of writing is by folk who have some agenda, be feminist, pagan, liberal, homosexual, hypersexual, communist, relativist, fascist, neo-con, satanic, etc....?

...university professors, filled with intellectual pride, are tools of the Devil for creating an emasculated society of value relativism and political correctness.
 
Last edited:
Lawdog said:
Ok, fine. have it your way. No need to get angry. I acknowledge your journey for wisdom, your sacrifice for the Church,
and respect your power to discern history, (eventhough I think you are wrong).

About trash scholarship: Why is it that so much trash gets puiblished? all you need to do is walk into Barnes and noble and see the trash everywhere. How can deny that the trend in the past thirty or so years of academia is to 're-interprete' history? Surely there has been advantageous advances because of this, but the majority of writing is by folk who have some agenda, be feminist, pagan, liberal, homosexual, hypersexual, communist, relativist, fascist, neo-con, satanic, etc....?

...university professors, filled with intellectual pride, are tools of the Devil for creating an emasculated society of value relativism and political correctness.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: There are such academia out there who are biblical scholars and archeologists. I don't read religious fiction such as The Da Vinci Code, etc., even though Dan Brown interwove some historical facts into a novel, that doesn't make it worth my time to read it.

FYI, there are many scholarly texts being published even by the most devout christians out there (Dominic Crossan, for one), who totally denies the Trinity, Virgin Birth and Resurrection, and he presents it in a factual, cited manner. He's not the only one. I just posted a brief bibliography, but there are so many more scholars today publishing factual information surrounding the christ myth. One man's trash is another man's treasure. You're just afraid of the truth.
 
Thats what I mean, those people who you say are devout really are not. You cant deny those things and then call yourself Catholic. I think that you would agree. After all, you wouldnt call yourself an atheist and then turn around and say you believed in an all powerful God, or call yourself an Odinist and they say that you are praying for the souls in purgatory.

therefore, if we can agree on that simple premise, then whats wrong with us protecting our religion by calling "trash" certain scholarship that goes against what we believe? In the case of history, theres no way to prove 100% that, for example, Mary Magdalan was a feminist or that she married Jesus or whatever. right? I mean, ultimately its up to belief since, in the eyes of most folk, there is a paucity of sources. One might be able to make assertions about Julius Caesar, but few believe the story about him and cleopatra to have not been contaminated by romantic elements.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top