The Gospel of Mark Belongs To Peter

Ligurian said:

ou know what Jesus said about your traditions, right?

Click to expand...

That is probably one of the most foolish Protestant Canards that should be buried for all time.
Yes Jesus spoke about traditions in a negative sense, but the Bible is not universally negative about Tradition aka Paradosis. That word is used positively too in its noun and verb forms.


Jude 3
New King James Version

Contend for the Faith
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.



2Th 2:15

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.


2Th 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.



1 Corinthians 11 (womans hair controversy)

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.



PS - And by the way the scripture does not just talk about creating man made traditions, or adding but also about subtracting from "the ancient boundary stones" etc. which is what the whole point of this thread is and you want to create your new tradition of relabeling this gospel.

Ligurian said:

Why do people dislike The Galilean Apostles, but covet their works?

Click to expand...

Who dislikes them?

Ligurian said:

How 'bout calling it ... The Gospel of Peter, tr. by Mark

Click to expand...

Because there is a book called the Gospel of Peter; it was rejected as heretical. Google it, read it online and decide for yourself.

Ligurian said:

I'm sorry, I can't quite wrap my head around that poor excuse for creating myth out of history.

Click to expand...

Don't know what you mean by that.

Ligurian said:

Doesn't the church even care that Peter is the first Apostle Jesus chose?

Click to expand...

According to John's Gospel it was his brother, Andrew, who heard Jesus and then went to fetch Peter.
But what difference does that make anyway?

Ligurian said:

Peter was specifically chosen by Jesus to feed His flock.

Click to expand...

No; they were ALL told to go and make disciples, teaching them everything Jesus and taught them and baptising, Matthew 28:19-20.
Jesus was told 3 times to feed Jesus' sheep, sure; he was being recommissioned after having denied Jesus 3 times. If Jesus hadn't asked Peter 3 times if he loved him and then told him to feed his flock, Peter would have felt guilty, been unforgiven and been unable to serve God - possibly even unable to receive the Spirit.

Ligurian said:

People entirely dismiss what must have been Jesus' reasoning for doing both, and seem to want to abrogate the choice itself, and replace Peter with some not-chosen scribe/translator.

Click to expand...

No they don't.
Peter was told to feed Jesus' sheep - that doesn't mean that he had to write a Gospel. And the fact that someone else DID write the Gospel, does not take anything away from Peter's ministry.

Ligurian said:

I think I hear this echo in the people who refuse to consider any Real History that would mean replacing "the set of lies agreed upon" for millennia. So that, rather than getting rid of the lies, we validate lies by bobbling the collective head.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't know what you mean by that.

Ligurian said:

If only there were some courageous publisher (gasp) who would take the risk, step out of line, pitch the smothering box of man's traditional lies... and actually publish "The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth" of The Galilean Apostles.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that those who wrote the Gospels lied?

Ligurian said:

Apart from this thinly veiled obfuscation, people have this overwhelming tendency to consider "the canon" to be infallible and they pretend to themselves, and to anyone who cares to listen to them, that this "infallible canon" equals the very Word of God Itself.

Click to expand...

Scripture is the Bible.
The Bible was compiled and then the canon was closed - meaning that we cannot, and do not, add or subtract any books from it. If we could do that, everyone would take out the difficult books and add stuff that they thought ought to be in there. The Bible would constantly change and be at the mercy of the desires of men and women, and we would have no word to tell us about God or help us formulate our doctrine; we wouldn't stand a chance against cults and people who try to twist the truth.

Ligurian said:

"According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.

Click to expand...

It's the infallible decision of the Holy Spirit - who worked through the church.

Ligurian said:

Not one of your quotes comes from The Galilean Apostles.

Click to expand...

That hardly matters. Unless of course you consider them to be heretical, or otherwise not canonical. (which might affect your standing here as a far as the Terms of Service)

Ligurian said:

Matthew and Peter and John are all Jesus' Galilean Apostles... they got this Gospel of the Kingdom straight from Jesus, because they were with Him from the beginning. The 11 Disciples had been drawn by the Father to the Son, and "Thine they were" given by the Father to Jesus, and then they were prayed for by Jesus in John 17... and would give their word to those who'd believe on Jesus through their word, in John 17:20. These are promises from Jesus about these men, and these promises are witnessed by the three Gospels from Galilee.

Luke tells us he had his gospel from his pals... apparently he was the journalist of his fellow travellers... we don't know who Luke interviewed and whether any of them kept the saying of Jesus: "If ye love Me, keep My commandments."

Click to expand...

Paul wrote about Luke and Mark in 2 Timothy 4 (NIV):

9Do your best to come to me quickly, 10for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. 11Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. 12I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. 13When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.

Ligurian said:

A better question is: Who doesn't dislike the Galilean Apostles, other than me?

If it's not dislike, why do they fight tooth and nail to give authorship to the unknown?

Click to expand...

Well, I'm personally happy to read any of Peter's letters, or his sermons in Acts as authoratitive. And I have no problem if Peter was the source for Mark.

From Peter's letters themselves we can surmise that Peter himself was not a scribe (he did not write) as he employed Silas / Silvanus to do his scribing for him.

We also know that scribes took many forms at the time and performed pretty much the same duties they do today - they acted as historians, journalists, secretaries, copiers, even ghostwriters.

So, without doing any historical study on the matter, common sense tells me that if Mark scribed the book under question by sourcing the info from Peter (like a journalist), I very much doubt that Peter himself was (or is) very perturbed that a book got Mark's name on it rather than Peter's.

The fact of the matter is the whole NT is the apostles' teaching, and various actors were responsible for the copying and collecting and preservation of the text. The text carries the authority of the apostles, including the original 11, including Peter.

I'll be the first to admit that Paul gets too much limelight, particularly n the evangelical church - I'll give you that, if that's part of your complaint.

But to be frank, this thread seems like a bit of a storm in a teacup. It is very interesting historically and to work through one's theology with regards to authority, but I misunderstand the almost offense you seem to have against Mark as a "nothing" and the like, as if God was (or is) not interested in other gifts in the (early) church, and all that matters is the apostles. This seems to be an attitude the apostles themselves were very much against, given Paul's remarks about gifts in Rom 12, 1 Cor 12, Eph 4; and Jesus' rebuke around "who is the greatest" in Luke 22 and "he who must not be named" (Mark) 9.

Ligurian said:

A better question is: Who doesn't dislike the Galilean Apostles, other than me?

Click to expand...

You're asking who doesn't dislike Jesus' 12 disciples - i.e who likes them?
I would think almost every Christian.

Ligurian said:

If it's not dislike, why do they fight tooth and nail to give authorship to the unknown?

Click to expand...

Mark got most of the information from his Gospel from Peter - he was the one who wrote it down.
Mark - whose name was actually John-Mark - was not "unknown" to the early church. He was the son of Mary, in whose home the early disciples met, Acts of the Apostles 12:12, and went with Paul and Barnabas on their mission, Acts of the Apostles 12:25. He later left Paul to return to Jerusalem, Acts of the Apostles 13:13. Later, when Paul wanted he and Barnabas to go back and revisit the churches they had founded, Barnabas wanted to take Mark with them, Acts of the Apostles 15:37-38, but Paul didn't, because he had previously deserted them. They split up; Barnabas and Mark went to Cyprus, while Paul and Silas went to Syria.
Whatever Mark did in the following years and wherever he went, he was with Paul when Paul wrote the letter to the Colossians (Colossians 4:10.) And right at the end of his life, Paul writes that Mark was useful to him in his ministry, 2 Timothy 4:11.

It is also thought that the young man in the Garden of Gethsemane who was seized by the soldiers but wriggled out of his tunic and ran away naked, Mark 14:51-52, was the author (Mark) himself. These verses do not appear in any other Gospel - even though Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for their work. And there seems to be no other reason for them to be there - this was Mark's way of saying "I was there".

Ligurian said:

Must be a different Mark.

Click to expand...

Why must it be a different Mark?
Have you done any research or have evidence for that?

Ligurian said:

so Paul's fellow-traveler-Mark went with Paul to the heathen... Galatians 2:9.

Click to expand...

Read Acts 15: Barnabas and Paul argued and split up, and Barnabas took Mark with him to Cyprus while Paul took Silas and went elsewhere.

Ligurian said:

You consider this thread to be a storm in a teacup because you think the whole NT comes from the same people. Even though Paul tells you it doesn't.

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

This would explain the two gospels, the different works of the Holy Spirit, the Galilean Apostles vs Paul, etc. ad infinitum. (Thanx for making me do the research!)

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean that the whole of the NT comes from the same people? I was saying it was a team effort - making space for more people to be involved.

As to the rest of the comments on 'two gospels', I see the New Testament is quite averse to such an idea. Paul goes through effort to note there is only "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" in Ephesians 4:5,6. In the same letter (Ephesians 2) he notes that Jesus is our peace who has united both Jews and Gentiles into one people - "the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility...". Peter, writing to Gentiles and Jews, uses scriptures reserved originally for the Jews to make a point - calling them all a "royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession" (1 Peter 2:9) - something he obviously learned in his experience with Cornelius.

I could raise more examples.

This shows there is no 'two gospels' but only one. Galatians 2:9 and other relating scriptures, however, do show us that the one gospel is to be applied into different cultures and contexts differently. This is a lesson that the Church has frequently forgotten, much to the pain of everybody. It's not that the gospel changes, however, only the application of the one gospel with the one king, the one baptism, the one faith, the one kingdom, into diverse cultures. Even the gift of tongues originally points towards this fact - different language, same gospel, one Church, etc.

Ligurian said:

Must be a different Mark. Peter went to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, so Paul's fellow-traveler-Mark went with Paul to the heathen... Galatians 2:9.

Click to expand...

Paul was going into the synagogues of the Diaspora to teach. In that area he met Jews and God fearing Gentiles. Paul’s traveling companion Barnabas was Jewish. Paul’s coworker Timothy had a Jewish mother. Paul circumcised him as Paul was yet reaching out to the Jews.

dqhall said:

Paul was going into the synagogues of the Diaspora to teach. In that area he met Jews and God fearing Gentiles. Paul’s traveling companion Barnabas was Jewish. Paul’s coworker Timothy had a Jewish mother. Paul circumcised him as Paul was yet reaching out to the Jews.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. Paul was called as an Apostle to the Gentiles, but that did not stop him from debating in the synagogues with Jews. Romans chapters 9 -11 is about the question of whether the Jews are still God's people; Paul even says that he, himself, would be cut off from Christ, if it meant the salvation of the Jews, Romans 9:2-3.

Strong in Him said:

Yes, I agree. Paul was called as an Apostle to the Gentiles, but that did not stop him from debating in the synagogues with Jews. Romans chapters 9 -11 is about the question of whether the Jews are still God's people; Paul even says that he, himself, would be cut off from Christ, if it meant the salvation of the Jews, Romans 9:2-3.

Click to expand...

God sent Jesus to the Jews means there was some hope Jews will understand, but only a few of any racial group were able to understand.