The Christ confessor in Mark, Luke, and Matthew is Peter while Mary gets to go to the cave. In John the Christ confessor is Mary and she gets to go to the cave. The early church fathers liked to really play up her supposed life of being a removed before repentance. Meanwhile Paul hints at her existence and says nice things about her. At the same time Mark makes her so dumb she “tells no one” about what would be the single most important moment in Christianity while Luke and Matthew give her a helper to make the right decision.
It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what happened but there is a trend. She goes from being a major leader of the earliest church to a removed that Jesus saves and is too stupid to know what she saw. If I had to take a bet: she was part of the very early church, funded and organized a lot, and had some falling out probably with someone from Paul’s community. So Mark tried to memoryhole her and would have done it except John had some story about how she rocked and saved her.
What do you mean the Christ Confessor? In Matthew 28 , Peter isn’t mentioned, but Mary finds the empty tomb. In John 20 and Luke 24, Peter runs to the tomb after being told by Mary. In all of these accounts, Peter is given a position which appears to be “lesser” than Mary Magdelene. In Mark, she was too afraid to tell anyone until Jesus appeared to her and reassured her (John goes into detail about this, and notes how she was crying in distress). If she actually didn’t tell anyone permanently, that fact wouldn’t have been recorded.
Also worth mentioning, she had seven demons driven out. Wasn’t a removed. This is basically just a weirdly elaborate theory which doesn’t really hold any water or value whatsoever.
Christ confessor: the person who answers Jesus when he asks who I am for the first time. Check for yourself the first three gospels it is Peter the fourth it is Mary.
The endings of Mark wasn’t part of the original. They were attempts at harmonizing the text. The original ending ends with Mary fleeing the tomb and telling no one.
The original ending was likely a literary device - perhaps encouraging the reader to do what Jesus said as Mary wouldn’t do it. It is still recognised as a very early addition, and the fact it was just someone tying up the story to make it read better was also recorded early on. As a matter of fact, if you remove verse 8, it actually makes sense again, so verse 8 seems to be an intentional cliffhanger.
You are right there in the sense that we know the early church added on to it, but basically every copy of the Bible I have minus the KJV (which doesn’t use footnotes and is from 1611 anyway) mentions that they were added on. They aren’t even that significant, unless you’re that snake handling denomination. Everything said there is backed up by the other three gospels.
It is only backed up because the other gospels plagiarized from it. This is like being amazed that Batman is an orphan in the comics, movies, cartoons, and graphic novels.
Mark diminished Mary’s role just like he did with the entire ministry. Matthew invented what happened next by trying to figure out what Paul was talking about in the letters.
Welcome to the Bible where what really happened doesn’t matter.
The greek language structure of Mark seems to be cut off abruptly at the end. It doesn’t conclude the Gospel properly. It wouldn’t have made sense to end it here either as we know from Paul’s letters which were written before. The end of the Gospel of Mark was likely a call to respond, to do what the women were told to do.
Secondly, you even seemed to say so yourself that John was written more isolated from the synoptics, so if they were trying to “censor” out when making stuff up, why would he include her in his gospel in the first place?
Lastly, that’s assuming Marcan priority, which generally tries to presuppose that Matthew wasn’t an eyewitness account in the first place. The early church clearly records Matthew as being written first and Matthew being written by Matthew (keep in mind that the Gospels were widely circulated by then and they had already rejected forgeries under names such as Peter) and Marcan priority was only hypothesised in the late 18th century, yet is still quite debated. Athiestic Bible scholars like it because it is useful for them to explain away the Bible.
Source?
The Bible. What do you want from me?
The Christ confessor in Mark, Luke, and Matthew is Peter while Mary gets to go to the cave. In John the Christ confessor is Mary and she gets to go to the cave. The early church fathers liked to really play up her supposed life of being a removed before repentance. Meanwhile Paul hints at her existence and says nice things about her. At the same time Mark makes her so dumb she “tells no one” about what would be the single most important moment in Christianity while Luke and Matthew give her a helper to make the right decision.
It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what happened but there is a trend. She goes from being a major leader of the earliest church to a removed that Jesus saves and is too stupid to know what she saw. If I had to take a bet: she was part of the very early church, funded and organized a lot, and had some falling out probably with someone from Paul’s community. So Mark tried to memoryhole her and would have done it except John had some story about how she rocked and saved her.
What do you mean the Christ Confessor? In Matthew 28 , Peter isn’t mentioned, but Mary finds the empty tomb. In John 20 and Luke 24, Peter runs to the tomb after being told by Mary. In all of these accounts, Peter is given a position which appears to be “lesser” than Mary Magdelene. In Mark, she was too afraid to tell anyone until Jesus appeared to her and reassured her (John goes into detail about this, and notes how she was crying in distress). If she actually didn’t tell anyone permanently, that fact wouldn’t have been recorded.
Also worth mentioning, she had seven demons driven out. Wasn’t a removed. This is basically just a weirdly elaborate theory which doesn’t really hold any water or value whatsoever.
Christ confessor: the person who answers Jesus when he asks who I am for the first time. Check for yourself the first three gospels it is Peter the fourth it is Mary.
The endings of Mark wasn’t part of the original. They were attempts at harmonizing the text. The original ending ends with Mary fleeing the tomb and telling no one.
The original ending was likely a literary device - perhaps encouraging the reader to do what Jesus said as Mary wouldn’t do it. It is still recognised as a very early addition, and the fact it was just someone tying up the story to make it read better was also recorded early on. As a matter of fact, if you remove verse 8, it actually makes sense again, so verse 8 seems to be an intentional cliffhanger.
What blog did you copy that from? And yes it was a literary device but that doesn’t suddenly mean whatever ending you want goes there.
You are right there in the sense that we know the early church added on to it, but basically every copy of the Bible I have minus the KJV (which doesn’t use footnotes and is from 1611 anyway) mentions that they were added on. They aren’t even that significant, unless you’re that snake handling denomination. Everything said there is backed up by the other three gospels.
It is only backed up because the other gospels plagiarized from it. This is like being amazed that Batman is an orphan in the comics, movies, cartoons, and graphic novels.
Mark diminished Mary’s role just like he did with the entire ministry. Matthew invented what happened next by trying to figure out what Paul was talking about in the letters.
Welcome to the Bible where what really happened doesn’t matter.
The greek language structure of Mark seems to be cut off abruptly at the end. It doesn’t conclude the Gospel properly. It wouldn’t have made sense to end it here either as we know from Paul’s letters which were written before. The end of the Gospel of Mark was likely a call to respond, to do what the women were told to do.
Secondly, you even seemed to say so yourself that John was written more isolated from the synoptics, so if they were trying to “censor” out when making stuff up, why would he include her in his gospel in the first place?
Lastly, that’s assuming Marcan priority, which generally tries to presuppose that Matthew wasn’t an eyewitness account in the first place. The early church clearly records Matthew as being written first and Matthew being written by Matthew (keep in mind that the Gospels were widely circulated by then and they had already rejected forgeries under names such as Peter) and Marcan priority was only hypothesised in the late 18th century, yet is still quite debated. Athiestic Bible scholars like it because it is useful for them to explain away the Bible.