NationStates Jolt Archive

I've got a scripture I've been puzzling over for quite some time now--can't really figure out what's going on in it, the reason it's there, etc. It seems to just be a random detail with no context, but it's a very odd one.

The scripture is Mark 14:51-52. The scene is the Garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus is taken away for judgment before Pilate. The scripture reads:51A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

What the hell was going on in that garden?

It just shows the fear and desperation when Jesus was seized that the guy's garments fell off and he kept running anyway and left them behind.

I've got a scripture I've been puzzling over for quite some time now--can't really figure out what's going on in it, the reason it's there, etc. It seems to just be a random detail with no context, but it's a very odd one.

The scripture is Mark 14:51-52. The scene is the Garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus is taken away for judgment before Pilate. The scripture reads:

What the hell was going on in that garden?
Just getting to know each other "in the biblical sense"

It just shows the fear and desperation when Jesus was seized that the guy's garments fell off and he kept running anyway and left them behind.
Not garments--garment, as in singular. No undergarment? They were in pretty common usage at the time, even prescribed in the Talmud.

Just to reiterate--I don't know what the story is with this scripture. I'm just curious.

I'm just curious.

that was his excuse too

that was his excuse too
They just roll off your tongue don't they? :D

So I'm not alone in thinking that this situations sounds a little, um, queer? :D

I sort of wish Neo Rogolia would get out of that gay thread and come over here so she could have a conniption.

So I'm not alone in thinking that this situations sounds a little, um, queer? :D

I sort of wish Neo Rogolia would get out of that gay thread and come over here so she could have a conniption.
I think that kinda why Jesuses dad made him come home early.

So I'm not alone in thinking that this situations sounds a little, um, queer? :D

I sort of wish Neo Rogolia would get out of that gay thread and come over here so she could have a conniption.
I think that kinda why Jesus' dad made him come home early.

I'm be no stretch of the imagination a bible scholar but the way that scripture sounds to me it may be that he may have been following close by jesus at the time, like right next to him or side by side, and so when the came to grab jesus, presumably with great force, the garment he was wearing may have been nocked (misspelled that) off. Similar to nocking of a hat from someone head, or something like that. The "young man" may have been frightened , Which wouldn't be suprising in anyway that would be scary even today, He ran off clothed or unclothed.

I'm be no stretch of the imagination a bible scholar but the way that scripture sounds to me it may be that he may have been following close by jesus at the time, like right next to him or side by side, and so when the came to grab jesus, presumably with great force, the garment he was wearing may have been nocked (misspelled that) off. Similar to nocking of a hat from someone head, or something like that. The "young man" may have been frightened , Which wouldn't be suprising in anyway that would be scary even today, He ran off clothed or unclothed.


so his clothes fell off when he got jostled a bit?

I'm be no stretch of the imagination a bible scholar but the way that scripture sounds to me it may be that he may have been following close by jesus at the time, like right next to him or side by side, and so when the came to grab jesus, presumably with great force, the garment he was wearing may have been nocked (misspelled that) off. Similar to nocking of a hat from someone head, or something like that. The "young man" may have been frightened , Which wouldn't be suprising in anyway that would be scary even today, He ran off clothed or unclothed.
Ah-huh... and accident? Like when you fall over and land on someones cock?

Ah-huh... and accident? Like when you fall over and land on someones cock?
Does that happen to you often? :fluffle: :D

Ah-huh... and accident? Like when you fall over and land on someones cock?

I broke out laughing at that. I've actually heard someone use that excuse in 100% seriousness. I'd explain the situation, but something tells me the NS mods wouldn't be to keen on me doing so.

I think its suspose to establish the fear that the Roman Guards put into the villagers and the common people.

I think its suspose to establish the fear that the Roman Guards put into the villagers and the common people.
Yeah--I got that with the whole running away bit. It's the "naked under a linen garment alone in the garden in the middle of the night with a lot of other guys" part I missed.

Yeah--I got that with the whole running away bit. It's the "naked under a linen garment alone in the garden in the middle of the night with a lot of other guys" part I missed.

Well this is what it says in my student Bible.

"Many scholars believe that the young man in this verse was none other than Mark himself, author of this Gospel. Often, in acient days, an author wouldn't use his name but would plant a clue as this.

You know, just because he doesn't have undergarment means that something sexual was going on. Maybe Mark was worried about Jesus and when he heard about the raid, he hurried and forgot his undergarment.

Well this is what it says in my student Bible.

"Many scholars believe that the young man in this verse was none other than Mark himself, author of this Gospel. Often, in acient days, an author wouldn't use his name but would plant a clue as this.

Mark was a bit of an exibitionist then eh?

There is some speculation that the "young man" in question was John Mark, the very author of the gospel. It is also speculated that the Last Supper was held in the upper room of his parents' house. Logically, John may have decided it would be interesting to follow the group of men as they went to the garden following the passover meal. Maybe he didn't put on all his clothes but just went out in his linen tunic? Could be.

shoot beat to the punch again.

shoot beat to the punch again.

LOL sorry, but I am a devout Roman Catholic, and I am prepare to defend Jesus Christ.

And I am a Baptist with the same inclination.

And I am a Baptist with the same inclination.

Tell me, do ALL Baptist hate Catholics? Because I live in the heart of the Baptist Bible Belt. Everytime I mention that I am Catholic to a Baptist, they go nuts and try to save me. I have nothing wrong with your denomination, but I am perfectly happy serving under God, Jesus, Pope Benedict XVI, Mary, and the saints.

So, you guys say you want to "defend" Jesus, right?

So, you guys say you want to "defend" Jesus, right?

Yep, willing and ready to pick up the cross.

Does that happen to you often? :fluffle: :D


i wish...

Yep, willing and ready to pick up the cross.


Thats great.

Let me ask you this:


Defend him from what?

Thats great.

Let me ask you this:


Defend him from what?

Basically from people who write crap like "Da Vinici Code".

Basically from people who write crap like "Da Vinici Code".


Does that mean that you believe that Jesus cant take care of himself?

:headbang: Yep, willing and ready to pick up the cross.

Do you actually think god need you to defend him/her/it? Isn't that a bit of an oximoron?

Does that mean that you believe that Jesus cant take care of himself?

I believe that Jesus Christ and God will deliever their judgement on the final days, but that still doesn't mean that I can't defend my religion, why I believe what I do, and engaged in debate, answears people question.

I believe that Jesus Christ and God will deliever their judgement on the final days, but that still doesn't mean that I can't defend my religion, why I believe what I do, and engaged in debate, answears people question.

errrrrrr
what does religion have to do with god?

What if God doesn't exist? :O!

I believe that Jesus Christ and God will deliever their judgement on the final days, but that still doesn't mean that I can't defend my religion, why I believe what I do, and engaged in debate, answears people question.


Thats not what I asked you.

Of course youre willing to defend your faith, your beliefs...

But you said you would rise to defend Jesus.

So then, if other posters were making smartass jokes about Jesus being gay...

Why would you need to post to defend him?

What were you defending him from?

I don't hate Catholics, I just don't agree with the parts of their practices that aren't actually found in the Bible. That doesn't mean I'm going to pull out my portable dunk tank and try to force you to be immersed. Some of my best friends have been Catholic and my sister has gone and married one, dangit. I can't very well suddenly hate her, now. I just joke a little and call my nieces' confirmation ceremonies "child sacrifice rituals" just to make her mad. Then I sit down and enjoy the big feed my brother-in-law puts down for us every time we show up for one.

Anyway. I'd like to appologize for all the imbeciles out there on both sides.

Thats not what I asked you.

Of course youre willing to defend your faith, your beliefs...

But you said you would rise to defend Jesus.

So then, if other posters were making smartass jokes about Jesus being gay...

Why would you need to post to defend him?

What were you defending him from?

From the smartass comment. Look I am respectable of other religion, and I expect the same in return ok. My philosphy is, believe in what you want, but don't trip over another guy's religion just because Mommy made you dress up for church when you were a kid.

Thats not what I asked you.

Of course youre willing to defend your faith, your beliefs...

But you said you would rise to defend Jesus.

So then, if other posters were making smartass jokes about Jesus being gay...

Why would you need to post to defend him?

What were you defending him from?

It is not so much Defending Jesus as it is defending his honor, just like I would try to defend the honor of anyone that I respected. I owe Him more than I will ever be able to repay.

From the smartass comment. Look I am respectable of other religion, and I expect the same in return ok. My philosphy is, believe in what you want, but don't trip over another guy's religion just because Mommy made you dress up for church when you were a kid.


Ok..

So you say you were defending him from the aforementioned smartass comment.

Is it that you dont think Jesus can take a little ribbing?

Sure, you may not like it when someone makes fun of your religion, but really, making vague references to Jesus being gay, doesnt really change your religion much.

It wouldnt matter if Jesus were gay, straight, or Bisexual, as long as he died on that cross, and you believe that to be true.

So then, why does the thought of Jesus being gay bother you so much?

It is not so much Defending Jesus as it is defending his honor, just like I would try to defend the honor of anyone that I respected. I owe Him more than I will ever be able to repay.


You think making lighthearted jokes about Jesus' sexuality damages his honor?

You think making lighthearted jokes about Jesus' sexuality damages his honor?

Do you think that it would "damage" yours when people would make the same remarks about you or someone you loved?

Do you think that it would "damage" yours when people would make the same remarks about you or someone you loved?


No it doesnt.

I know who I am sexually, and anyone making a joke of some sort is just a joke, unless you let such things offend you.

But jumping to Jesus' defense at a half-assed comment about him being gay, implies you have severe issue with the idea that Jesus could have been gay.

It bothers you somehow.

Why?

Um, is it me, or is ir wrong in Catholic's eyes to be gay/bi?

Frankly, i see nothing wrong with it, im a Methodist, but i think you should read up on what others beleifs are before making idiotic comments like that.

In order for the question of Jesus's honor to matter to anyone, they must first believe that Jesus was the one, only, perfect Son of God; sent to earth, born of a virgin and that he lived a sinless life in order that he could be the only suitable sacrifice to be propitiation for the sin of all mankind.

If you don't believe that, it really doesn't matter what you call Jesus or what you say about him. It's just the name of another dude in history that hollywood makes movies about.

What if God doesn't exist? :O!


What if He does?

What if He does?


Then he will say something to you about answering a question with a question.

Then he will say something to you about answering a question with a question.

Good point.

If God does not exist, taken out to it's extreme endpoint, then there is no reasonable cause for existence. We are accidents of feckless enzimes swimming in pools of amino acids. Therefore there is no need for rule of law or any sort of organized government, property rights or right to life. My existence is to no end since once I'm dead, I'm dead and it doesn't matter for anything.

I can kill anything or anyone with no conseqence to the fabric of accidental nature.

Now,
What if He does exist?

Look I am respectable of other religion, and I expect the same in return ok. My philosphy is, believe in what you want, but don't trip over another guy's religion just because Mommy made you dress up for church when you were a kid.

It's high time we became less tolerant towards religion.

While scientists get grilled for every statement they make (and rightly so), tolerance and respect is expected towards anyone talking sheer crap based on some compilation of badly written and unprecisely reretanslated texts from the bronze age.

What a reference to build your life on!

Good point.

If God does not exist, taken out to it's extreme endpoint, then there is no reasonable cause for existence. We are accidents of feckless enzimes swimming in pools of amino acids. Therefore there is no need for rule of law or any sort of organized government, property rights or right to life. My existence is to no end since once I'm dead, I'm dead and it doesn't matter for anything.

I can kill anything or anyone with no conseqence to the fabric of accidental nature.

Now,
What if He does exist?

If he does.....then its a good thing hes a kind benevolent god, isnt it?

However, if you truly believe that about your life, if he doesnt exist, then in essence your already living for the next life, and wasting the one you have.

If he does.....then its a good thing hes a kind benevolent god, isnt it?

However, if you truly believe that about your life, if he doesnt exist, then in essence your already living for the next life, and wasting the one you have.
You betcha its a good thing He's kind and loving.

I'm living this life in order to please Him. That means I do the exact opposite of what I would do if He did not exist.

Christ gave me a purpose. It's my job to live up to it.

You betcha its a good thing He's kind and loving.

I'm living this life in order to please Him. That means I do the exact opposite of what I would do if He did not exist.

Christ gave me a purpose. It's my job to live up to it.


So, if all of a sudden, you woke uo one day, and new for certain, that God didnt exist, everything you have learned from your faith would mean nothing?

All of the lessons Christ attempted to teach you, would all cease to have meaning?

Im not just talking about preparing yourself for Heaven, im talking about the way that Christ taught people to live NOW...

All of that would mean nothing?

If God does not exist, taken out to it's extreme endpoint, then there is no reasonable cause for existence. We are accidents of feckless enzimes swimming in pools of amino acids. Therefore there is no need for rule of law or any sort of organized government, property rights or right to life. My existence is to no end since once I'm dead, I'm dead and it doesn't matter for anything.
I can kill anything or anyone with no conseqence to the fabric of accidental nature.

Morals are man-made. No connection whatsoever with a fuzzy higher authority. And yes: life in itself is totally devoid of meaning. You have to put meaning in all by yourself. Your brain is capable of it, although it's a lot more difficult than relying on a Fuzzy One. Give it a try instead of shitting your pants out of fear of emptiness.

Morals are man-made. No connection whatsoever with a fuzzy higher authority. And yes: life in itself is totally devoid of meaning. You have to put meaning in all by yourself. Your brain is capable of it, although it's a lot more difficult than relying on a Fuzzy One. Give it a try instead of shitting your pants out of fear of emptiness.

Please explain to me why I must accept a nihilistic horror story rather than a possiblity of there actually being more to life than this miserable place?

Because you say so?

Would that make you my god and rule giver then?

Does that really make me a better man?

Please explain to me why I must accept a nihilistic horror story rather than a possiblity of there actually being more to life than this miserable place?

Because you say so?

Would that make you my god and rule giver then?

Does that really make me a better man?

Becuase if you believe that without God, there is nothing to live for.

Tht means you believe nothing good exists on this world, and no beauty can be found on this planet, anyhwere.

Thats not what God tuaght you, is it?

Its sounds like you cant see the forest for all the trees.

Christianity is a pretty self-sufficient system.
It wouldnt make a difference if God was there or not, you already have the guidelines you need.
"God helps those who help themselves."

And I believe theres a saying about Jesus warning others to not walk about with thier eyes fixed on Heaven, lest you walk off a cliff or something.

Becuase if you believe that without God, there is nothing to live for.

Tht means you believe nothing good exists on this world, and no beauty can be found on this planet, anyhwere.

Thats not what God tuaght you, is it?

No it isn't. God teaches that beauty is found in all His creation.

Its sounds like you cant see the forest for all the trees.

Christianity is a pretty self-sufficient system.
It wouldnt make a difference if God was there or not, you already have the guidelines you need.
"God helps those who help themselves."

Quote is not found in the Bible, sorry.

And I believe theres a saying about Jesus warning others to not walk about with thier eyes fixed on Heaven, lest you walk off a cliff or something.
That's definitely not there, either.

Like I said. I'd rather take scripture as fact, believe in a caring loving God that has provided a way to an eternity in His presence than in nothing at all.

I am an educated man, with a degree in education and world travel experiences most would only wish for. I have seen a lot, I have tasted the ways of man, and I prefer Christ, and him crucified, foolishness to the world, but to those who believe, true life.

That's definitely not there, either.

Like I said. I'd rather take scripture as fact, believe in a caring loving God that has provided a way to an eternity in His presence than in nothing at all.

I am an educated man, with a degree in education and world travel experiences most would only wish for. I have seen a lot, I have tasted the ways of man, and I prefer Christ, and him crucified, foolishness to the world, but to those who believe, true life.


Oh Im sure its there somewhere, its along the lines of "Pride Goeth before the Fall" or something.

At any rate, Im not trying to covert you to atheism or anything, but frankly, Im suggesting that you may be concentrating more on the reward that comes from a life of serving God, rather than the life itself.

By your reponse at what you would do if God didnt exist, it sounded to me like the world would become a bleak, hellhole, where roses existed the day before.

What Im saying is...God would want you to stop and smell them once in a while, instead of mourning something you may never have had.

Your afterlife is, by your faith, a done deal.

You've accepted Jesus, and all that, and your heaven-bound when you kick off...
So, in the meantime, all you have to, is live like a good christian.
That means maybe making the world you live in now, a little less crappy.

So ultimately, for you, even if you woke up tommorrow, and knew for sure that God wasnt there...up until that point, you were leading a good life, serving him in the way you thought best, right?

Why wouldnt you continue that way, even though God wasnt there?

Oh Im sure its there somewhere, its along the lines of "Pride Goeth before the Fall" or something.

At any rate, Im not trying to covert you to atheism or anything, but frankly, Im suggesting that you may be concentrating more on the reward that comes from a life of serving God, rather than the life itself.

By your reponse at what you would do if God didnt exist, it sounded to me like the world would become a bleak, hellhole, where roses existed the day before.

What Im saying is...God would want you to stop and smell them once in a while, instead of mourning something you may never have had.

Your afterlife is, by your faith, a done deal.

You've accepted Jesus, and all that, and your heaven-bound when you kick off...
So, in the meantime, all you have to, is live like a good christian.
That means maybe making the world you live in now, a little less crappy.

So ultimately, for you, even if you woke up tommorrow, and knew for sure that God wasnt there...up until that point, you were leading a good life, serving him in the way you thought best, right?

Why wouldnt you continue that way, even though God wasnt there?


What in the world gave you the impression I'm not living happily today AND living in expectation of better things?

Dude, I just got married two weeks ago! Do you think I'm being celebate? I'm enjoying the gift God gave me in a woman who loves me and enjoys showing it!!

I have a circle of friends I love and care about and a family that is out of this world! I have much to enjoy here on earth. I'm just not as attached to it as someone without my faith might be.

I serve God, enjoy the gifts He gives me every day and try to give back but will never be able to keep up with Him in the giving.

What in the world gave you the impression I'm not living happily today AND living in expectation of better things?

Dude, I just got married two weeks ago! Do you think I'm being celebate? I'm enjoying the gift God gave me in a woman who loves me and enjoys showing it!!

I have a circle of friends I love and care about and a family that is out of this world! I have much to enjoy here on earth. I'm just not as attached to it as someone without my faith might be.

I serve God, enjoy the gifts He gives me every day and try to give back but will never be able to keep up with Him in the giving.


Ok cool.

Its just that your post earlier seemed so bleak and empty, when you expounded on what you would do if God didnt exist.
It made me wonder why your attitude would change so suddenly if you knew, what I consider anyway, to be the truth.

I say we only have one life, and should not worry about what happens in the next, if there even is a next one.

If there was no God, there would not have been Christianity, and my life would have been bleak and empty.

It was before I was a Christian!

If there was no God, there would not have been Christianity, and my life would have been bleak and empty.

It was before I was a Christian!
'

But you'd still have your frieinds and family, right?

Yes, they were there, but I wasn't very nice to them.

Good thing they're Christians and forgave me.

Yes, they were there, but I wasn't very nice to them.

Good thing they're Christians and forgave me.


Then it seems as though your change into your faith was one that made you a better person for it.
I applaud you.
I wish that it happened more frequently.

I've got a scripture I've been puzzling over for quite some time now--can't really figure out what's going on in it, the reason it's there, etc. It seems to just be a random detail with no context, but it's a very odd one.

The scripture is Mark 14:51-52. The scene is the Garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus is taken away for judgment before Pilate. The scripture reads:

What the hell was going on in that garden?


Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.

You are describing a violent attack by a large group of armed men against a smaller group of men talking...

43Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.
44Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard." 45Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him. 46The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

48"Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." 50Then everyone deserted him and fled.

51A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

It sounds like any other invasion/raid/melee, violence, shock, screaming and yelling and people running around scared to death ... and you want to try to twist it into some sort of sexually charged environment like they were having an orgy? Perhaps it's time you consulted with a therapist and tried to address these sexual addiction tendencies you’re displaying, you're seeing stuff that isn't there. Does every ink blot somehow remind you of sex?

This passage is one in which the writer takes some literary freedom to his story. As we see later, the same boy is present in the tomb of Jesus. There have been some texts found that report he lost his cloak as he tried to escape. Though the original text has not been validated as to which one is the original. Though the boy himself appears in all, so he has made his way into the Vulgate and thus our modern bibles. Though the connection between Jesus's suffering always must be connected with the early church persecution, so he may represent those who immediately run and hide from the fear and then returns when the violence is over. This has been one interpretation.

Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.

You are describing a violent attack by a large group of armed men against a smaller group of men talking...

43Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.
44Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard." 45Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him. 46The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

48"Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." 50Then everyone deserted him and fled.

51A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

It sounds like any other invasion/raid/melee, violence, shock, screaming and yelling and people running around scared to death ... and you want to try to twist it into some sort of sexually charged environment like they were having an orgy? Perhaps it's time you consulted with a therapist and tried to address these sexual addiction tendencies you’re displaying, you're seeing stuff that isn't there. Does every ink blot somehow remind you of sex?Not every ink blot, no--many of them, however...

You're getting twisted about nothing here--it's a curious detail to add into an otherwise pretty straightforward story and it interests me because nobody--and I mean nobody--has a good reason as to why it's in there. There's speculation, there's conjecture, there's assumption, but that's all it is.

Fundamentalist christians are always popping off about how the Bible is "God's Word" and that it's infallible, and they often like to quote Paul saying "All scripture is inspired of God." Well, if that's the case, if all of it is important, then what's the importance of this? Does it give us some insight into the character of the man known as Jesus? It might. It might not.

Exegetical scholars who don't have religious axes to grind have a different theory for this little detail. They think it's a remnant from an older work that Mark used as one of his source texts for his gospel--they call it the secret gospel of Mark, which they've only found fragments of, but is referenced in other writings of the time period, so they know it existed at one time.

The gospels that appear in the Bible today have a pretty solid lineage--Mark's came first, and it was cobbled together from various source texts, including the secret gospel, the Q Gospel, and the Gospel of Thomas. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a primary source, and added in bits and pieces from other gospels and likely threw in legendary material, as did John when he wrote the last one.

When stories build that way, fragments of the originals whose meanings get lost often still pop up--they get cleared away by later storytellers in the interest of streamlining the story--but if your story becomes the basis of a major religion and the detail gets stuck in a canonized work for long enough, it can't suddenly be removed without any good reason. It can, however, be ignored, which is what has happened with this story.

Not every ink blot, no--many of them, however...

You're getting twisted about nothing here--it's a curious detail to add into an otherwise pretty straightforward story and it interests me because nobody--and I mean nobody--has a good reason as to why it's in there. There's speculation, there's conjecture, there's assumption, but that's all it is.

Fundamentalist christians are always popping off about how the Bible is "God's Word" and that it's infallible, and they often like to quote Paul saying "All scripture is inspired of God." Well, if that's the case, if all of it is important, then what's the importance of this? Does it give us some insight into the character of the man known as Jesus? It might. It might not.

Exegetical scholars who don't have religious axes to grind have a different theory for this little detail. They think it's a remnant from an older work that Mark used as one of his source texts for his gospel--they call it the secret gospel of Mark, which they've only found fragments of, but is referenced in other writings of the time period, so they know it existed at one time.

The gospels that appear in the Bible today have a pretty solid lineage--Mark's came first, and it was cobbled together from various source texts, including the secret gospel, the Q Gospel, and the Gospel of Thomas. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a primary source, and added in bits and pieces from other gospels and likely threw in legendary material, as did John when he wrote the last one.

When stories build that way, fragments of the originals whose meanings get lost often still pop up--they get cleared away by later storytellers in the interest of streamlining the story--but if your story becomes the basis of a major religion and the detail gets stuck in a canonized work for long enough, it can't suddenly be removed without any good reason. It can, however, be ignored, which is what has happened with this story.

First of all, I'm fairly religion, not fanatic but religious, and I think Paul was a load of crock. Of all people, his writings were influenced by his audience and warped to make them feel good. I hate feel-gooders!!!!! Consideration must always be taken on the audience. Tom Clancy wouldn't sell a book if there was only 80 year old women. Think about it.

These verses have been altered and translated and retranslated so much that none of them mean anything anymore.

These verses have been altered and translated and retranslated so much that none of them mean anything anymore.

Very optimistic

These verses have been altered and translated and retranslated so much that none of them mean anything anymore.
I wouldn't say that they mean nothing--there are still great pieces of wisdom and cultural interest to be found in there. But you are correct that the translation and retranslation over time has had an effect on just how fallible the text is in terms of accuracy.

There was a side discussion in another thread--forget which one right now--about the difference between fact and truth. This is a perfect example of how a text can possibly be factually inaccurate and yet still contain truth.

I just get annoyed because I was brought up in a church that taught that the King James Bible was the literal word of god. Since then I've learned a few things about how much is lost in the translation of a perfect text, and what a cobbled together mess the King James Bible is, and the idea just seems so absurd to me that anyone can take it literally.

I just get annoyed because I was brought up in a church that taught that the King James Bible was the literal word of god. Since then I've learned a few things about how much is lost in the translation of a perfect text, and what a cobbled together mess the King James Bible is, and the idea just seems so absurd to me that anyone can take it literally.

Ah the English bible. And the Mormon's bible. Ther is much history behind it which was built on the arrogance of English kings. I can see your discontent. Read the Oxford bible. I think it's the closest translation.

Not garments--garment, as in singular. No undergarment? They were in pretty common usage at the time, even prescribed in the Talmud.

It was common practice at the time for someone who could not pay their debts to be sued for their outer garment. In other words, the person to whom the debt was owed could take everything - down to your underwear. Thus, the poor could quite possibly be running around in their undergarment only - as it was all they had.

Interestingly, in the same sermon in which Christ admonished us to turn the other cheek, he also said that if you were sued for your outer garment, you should give your inner as well. Why? Because seeing nudity shamed the person looking on it, not the naked person! Was it Elijah who walked around Jeruselum naked for a year - shaming everyone who saw him?

So here are two possibilities. This guy could have been the person that said admonishment was made in reference to. Or, perhaps the writer of the Gospel wanted to make a point that all of the guards arresting Jesus were shamed by seeing this man's nudity. (or maybe a combination of both)

I broke out laughing at that. I've actually heard someone use that excuse in 100% seriousness. I'd explain the situation, but something tells me the NS mods wouldn't be to keen on me doing so.

The Non-Smoking modern people? Or Nova Scotian modulars?

After some of the lewd comments I saw in this thread I was reluctant to reply; however since I AM a biblical authority of some merit, I'll have a go at quenching these fiery darts of the wicked.

A Jewish man in the days of Jesus was considered naked by Jewish law if his outer garment had been removed. The "young man" (whether it was actually Mark the writer or not, no matter) was not NUDE, as has been implied.

If it was Mark, he's always been characterized as small framed and wirey in literature I've read. So was John the apostle who wrote the Gospel, the letters (1st, 2nd, 3rd John) and the book of the Revelation. Either could have been the young man who (being seized by the robe) slipped out of it and ran into the night to escape the Roman Guard. It's highly unlikely that this was more than a description of how his escape was procured.

Get your minds on the topic, folks. It's great reading!

Um, is it me, or is ir wrong in Catholic's eyes to be gay/bi?

Frankly, i see nothing wrong with it, im a Methodist, but i think you should read up on what others beleifs are before making idiotic comments like that.

Actually, Catholic dogma states that being a homosexual or bisexual is not wrong. After all, it is something that you have absolutely no control over - like menstruating or sweating. However, they believe that a homosexual is called to a life of celibacy and that a bisexual should only choose relationships with members of the opposite sex.

Interestingly enough, they also believe that Christ was entirely celibate, so the thought of him being gay or bisexual shouldn't bother a Catholic at all.