The Gospel of Mark Belongs To Peter

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...

There is no basis for accusing Mark of plagiarism and not Luke, simce Luke’s narrative was attributed to St. Paul. And St. Luke was the last person with Paul before St. Paul received a crown of martyrdom.

HatGuy said:

Who dislikes them?

Click to expand...

I don’t know of any. Also, there is only one Gospel, as you said.

Ligurian said:

As the creator of the thread, I'm probably the one who gets to tell you the point of the thread... it's almost comical, really.

Click to expand...

What is the point, other than to accuse one of the four evangelists of plagiarism and also bash St. Paul?

[/quote]

So, let me disabuse you of your subversive notion, Pavel Mosko... and replace it with the real intent of the author of this thread... ironic, that, given the whole Peter not Mark theme.

Because in fact, you illustrate my point, twofold.

Not one of your quotes comes from The Galilean Apostles.[/QUOTE]

St. Paul is a valid apostle. Its against the rules of CF.com to deny the legitimacy of his ministry.

Ligurian said:

Paul's gospel is in places like 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 and 1 Corinthians 1:23.

That's not the Kingdom Gospel, which Jesus taught from the time JohnB went to prison.
No mission or gospel change when Jesus returned from Heaven, either. Matthew 28:19-20.

In fact Galatians 2:7-9 matches what Jesus says in Matthew 10:5-6,
with Jesus sending His Disciples to what Paul calls the circumcision...
really hard to deny when Matthew 15:24 says that was Jesus' mission, too.

Matthew 10:5-7 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;

In fact, Paul seems to've been aware of these two separate gospels, so Acts 21:21 could have been avoided. Clearly, the Kingdom Gospel for the circumcision never abrogated the law; but Paul's gospel to the gentles certainly does.

Click to expand...

There is only one Gospel, which Galatians 1:8 makes clear. And the phrase “Kingdom Gospel” is unscriptural and was unknown to the early church.

HatGuy said:

I wouldn't. I would tell them to start with the Gospel accounts, probably starting with Mark.

There would never be a conversation about "Paul's gospel to the gentiles", for some of the reasons I've already outlined. There would be discussions around the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is risen.

Click to expand...

I would start them with Luke, myself, but yes.

Ligurian said:

Then you are drawn by Paul's doctrine to the gentiles.

Not to the doctrine Jesus spoke to His lost sheep of the house of Israel. There is no break in the thread from Moses to Jesus. The Prophets say God has always wanted Micah 6:8. Jesus repeats this theme when He tells them to find out what means I will have mercy and not sacrifice, for He has not come to call the (sacrificially) righteous, but sinners to repentance. What you might be hung-up on are the tests of God which Judah/Jerusalem failed in Exodus 20:19-20 and again in 1 Samuel 8:7 which eventually got to the point that Judah is a broken pot in Jeremiah 19:10-11 and replaced in Isaiah 65:15 and Matthew 21:43.

Click to expand...

There is no difference between the doctrine preached by Paul and that preached by Our Lord; Paul was an apostle converted by Christ.

Ligurian said:

Let me ask you, do you follow "Christ crucified" or do you follow the "Gospel of the Kingdom"? Do you most often remember the "without works" "by faith alone" verses or "If ye love Me keep My commandments" and "I know thy works" verses? Or are you one of those hybrid likers who don't care who wrote what to whom, even when you have to mangle one in favor of the other, or mangle and ruin both?

Click to expand...

There is only one Gospel, and that Gospel is the Good News that God took on our fallen humanity, sanctified it, and died for us in order to show us what it means to be human, and then rose from the grave trampling down death by death. So anyone who does not preach Christ Crucified is preaching a false Gospel unknown to St. Peter or St. Mark, since the Gospel of Mark preaches the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. The Kingdom of God is all encompassing and subtle, because God knows everything, is everywhere present and only by God are all things possible.

Ligurian said:

Paul's gospel is in places like 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 and 1 Corinthians 1:23.

That's not the Kingdom Gospel, which Jesus taught from the time JohnB went to prison.
No mission or gospel change when Jesus returned from Heaven, either. Matthew 28:19-20.

In fact Galatians 2:7-9 matches what Jesus says in Matthew 10:5-6,
with Jesus sending His Disciples to what Paul calls the circumcision...
really hard to deny when Matthew 15:24 says that was Jesus' mission, too.

Matthew 10:5-7 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;

In fact, Paul seems to've been aware of these two separate gospels, so Acts 21:21 could have been avoided. Clearly, the Kingdom Gospel for the circumcision never abrogated the law; but Paul's gospel to the gentles certainly does.

Click to expand...

This is hyper-Dispensationalist heresy. There is only one Gospel, Christ's Gospel. The Gospel of the kingdom is the same Gospel St. Paul preached to both Jew and Gentile, same Gospel St. Peter preached to both Jew and Gentile.

What Galatians 2:7 means is pretty straight forward: When Peter and Paul divided their apostolic duties, Peter would focus his work on preaching the Gospel to their fellow Jews, while Paul would bring the Gospel to the Gentiles. It is the same Gospel, they are simply splitting the work between them. And this is made more obvious by the fact that both Peter and Paul worked among both Jews and Gentiles. How many times do we read in the Acts of the Apostles that Paul went into the synagogues and preached to the Jewish communities among the Diaspora? Why does in his letter to the Galatians Paul rebuke Peter for refusing to eat and socialize with uncircumcised Gentiles when the group from Jerusalem came?

There is only one Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord. "The kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the Gospel." (Mark 1:15), this is the Gospel that Christ commanded His Apostles to preach "to all creation" (Mark 16:15), "proclaiming forgiveness of sins in [Christ's] name to all nations" (Luke 24:47).

The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ is for Jew and Gentile, as it is written, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God to save all who believe, the Jew first and also the Greek." (Romans 1:16).

The same Gospel Paul preached when under house arrest in Rome.

"Then Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him." - Acts of the Apostles 28:30-31

Hyper-dispensationalism and its heresies has no place in the Christian Church.

-CryptoLutheran

Ligurian said:

Since Mark "had not heard the Lord, nor had followed Him, but later on, followed Peter", your supposition of "maybe, his own eye witness observations" along with "just because Mark was with Peter ... doesn't mean that he followed him" both fall to the ground.

Mark never met Jesus, didn't walk with Him, wasn't inspiried by the Holy Spirit who (according to Jesus) reminds the Disciples what Jesus said and tells them what Jesus means... but conversely did follow Peter, and did write down what Peter taught... what other objections to the authorship of the Gospel of Peter scribed by Mark would you like to create?

"Papias said Mark scribed Peter’s teachings
Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (60-130AD) repeated the testimony of the old presbyters (disciples of the Apostles) who claimed Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome as he scribed the preaching of Peter (Ecclesiastical History Book 2 Chapter 15, Book 3 Chapter 30 and Book 6 Chapter 14). Papias wrote a five volume work entitled, “Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord”. In this treatise (which no longer exists), he quoted someone he identified as ‘the elder’, (most likely John the elder), a man who held considerable authority in Asia:

“And the elder used to say this, Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.”
Is Mark’s Gospel an Early Memoir of the Apostle Peter? | Cold Case Christianity

Click to expand...

Papias does not challenge the attribution of the Gospel of St. Mark to St. Mark, nor does he accuse Mark of plagiarism. That is what you are getting wrong. Peter commissioned Mark to write his Gospel, according to this.

But we do not know how accurate Papias was. We do know Mark wrote the Gospel, because its literary style is more refined and articulate than Peter’s; indeed as I mentioned earlier one verse in 2 Peter is extremely difficult to understand, semantically, and this holds true in the original Greek as well as in Syriac, Latin and English.

Ligurian said:

Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

VS

Matthew 7:24-25 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Click to expand...

In Romans 2:13 St. Paul is referring to the Mosaic Law, whereas in Matthew 7:24-25, our Lord is referring to his Sayings. Completely different.

Question: do you regard the teachings of St. Paul as defective, or consider his Apostolate invalid, or his message as opposed to our Lord?

Ligurian said:

Since Mark "had not heard the Lord, nor had followed Him, but later on, followed Peter", your supposition of "maybe, his own eye witness observations" along with "just because Mark was with Peter ... doesn't mean that he followed him" both fall to the ground.

Click to expand...

How do you know that Mark had not heard the Lord nor followed him?
A few posts back I mentioned the incident in the Garden of Gethsemane where someone tried to seize a young man and he ran away naked, leaving his tunic behind. A number of commentators, that I've read, suggest that that man was Mark himself. The incident is mentioned in no other Gospel and adds nothing to the story of Jesus' arrest - it is thought to be Mark saying "I was there."

You have never addressed that point.

Ligurian said:

Mark never met Jesus, didn't walk with Him,

Click to expand...

How do you know?

Ligurian said:

wasn't inspiried by the Holy Spirit ..

Click to expand...

How do you know?
The Holy Spirit was not just given to the 11 disciples.

Ligurian said:

but conversely did follow Peter, and did write down what Peter taught...

Click to expand...

We don't know that he followed Peter; he went off to Cyprus with Barnabas in Acts of the Apostles 15:39.

Ligurian said:

what other objections to the authorship of the Gospel of Peter scribed by Mark would you like to create?

Click to expand...

The Gospel according to Mark was written down by him using Peter as one of his sources.
The Gospel of Peter is a heretical book that is not in, and never made it into, Scripture.
I prefer to read an accredited, authorised Gospel to a heretical book whose authorship is in question.

And I am not objecting that Peter was a/the main source behind Mark's Gospel.
I am objecting that you seem to want to accuse Mark of plagiarism, that he wanted to get all the "credit", implying that he was not filled with, or inspired by, the Holy Spirit and suggesting that we change the name of the second Gospel - which would mean tampering with Scripture.

The Liturgist said:

I would start them with Luke, myself, but yes.

Click to expand...

Interesting! I chose Mark just because it's shorter. Why would you start with Luke?

Ligurian said:

That might be more true if Peter hadn't been acknowledged as the author of the Gospel called Mark. The first words of this Gospel says it's the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Our Peter would've had to be a newbie to call the things done on the cross the whole Gospel.

Click to expand...

Things done on the cross are not the whole gospel - granted. The cross functions as an entry-point for the Christian - through the work of Jesus done on the cross you enter into his death, are raised with him (baptism a picture of all this, explained in Romans 6 - 8), are placed in heavenly places with him, are filled with the Spirit and through this filling 'incarnate' (in a manner of speaking) the Kingdom on this earth, living a life of love like Jesus. This is a very rough summary but it shows that the whole life of Jesus is covered and the Christian in Christ, in a sense, 'recapitulates' this story, just like Jesus recapitulated the story of Israel (and the Christian does too - the Exodus journey is Christ's journey, is the Christian's journey, etc.).

Paul's often-mention of the cross is simply to indicate the entry point. However, Paul does focus on the other details as well. The logic is all there if you follow his letters - often culminating in love being the centre work of the Christian.

However, I don't need to get into a defense of Paul here. As I've illustrated in my previous posts, the gospel Peter preached and the one Paul preached are one in the same - they are just to two different people groups. It may be that the narrative followed to present the gospel changes depending on the people group you are speaking to, but none of that (or what you have presented) proves there are two gospels. Again, all you continue to show is Paul and Peter had different callings - a fact that isn't a surprise to anyone.

Ligurian said:

Peter translated by Mark 1:14-15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the Gospel.

Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

John 14:15 If ye love Me, keep My commandments.

Versus

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

But Paul didn't quote the Kingdom Gospel... I can't find him doing it.
Where'd you find the Sermon on the Mount in Pauline Doctrine?
And if he uses the phrases therein, why not give direct quotes?
What about Galatians 2:7-9 ? Want to make that a metaphor/myth?

Click to expand...

I see we're getting to the real 'crux' of the matter.

Ligurian said:

To make that statement, you had to completely disreguard what the Kingdom Gospel says about the Holy Spirit. Like everything else within the Kingdom Gospel, there are requirements.

If you keep Jesus' commandments, then the Father will give you the Holy Spirit... just as it was in the Old Testament.

John 14:15 If ye love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; 17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. … 26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

If you were with Jesus from the beginning, then you will be His witnesses.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with Me from the beginning.

What the Holy Spirit does, according to the Kingdom Gospel.

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you. 8 And when He is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on Me; 10 Of righteousness, because I go to My Father, and ye see Me no more; 11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, [that] shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are Mine: therefore said I, that He shall take of Mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.

The giving of the Holy Spirit to the Galilean Apostles.

John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace [be] unto you: as [My] Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.

Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Now, "If ye love Me keep My commandments" is pretty much the centerpiece (IMO) of the entire Kingdom Gospel.

But where do we even find the word "commandment" in the gospel to the gentiles, where it isn't being used as a curse word?

I kinda think Romans must Paul's gospel in a nutshell.

Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

What Paul calls a bad thing /\, Jesus calls life itself \/:

Matthew 7:24-25 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

How you reconcile these two things, must be like lawyers creating loopholes.

Click to expand...

So here we arrive at what I perceive to be the real crux of the matter for you. You seem to have issues with Paul's claiming that commandments are not important, in light of Jesus having a lot to say about commandments.

There are no 'loopholes' Christians are coming up with here. The very reason that the New Testament is not ONLY Paul's letters is proof positive that Christians have always understood that, as brilliant as Paul was, his writings are not the whole matter and are not always understood by everyone. We need to read the other guys too to build a whole picture. This is a fact that I don't think anyone would dispute.

I like John and I think his take on the matter very much makes sense of it all. The focus is on love. Christians are not called to obey the Law but are called to go beyond the law. Our morality, our principles, our covenant code is 'higher' than the Law.

"Truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18.)

This that Jesus said above is an undisputed fact that is very easy to reconcile with Christians not obeying the Law, but going beyond it. The Law is always going to be necessary to be used for conviction (and condemnation of those not in faith) of human beings. Therefore, I agree it will not and should not ever pass away, just as much as the conscience should not pass away. Luther noted this all over 500 years ago already in his "Law & Gospel" dialectic. There are no loopholes here.

If one loves Jesus then they will keep his commandments. And how does John unpack this in his letter of 1 John?


Here a Galilean apostle (and for the record, my personal favourite) has highlighted our union with Christ (verse 9), the cross (verse 10), the giving of the Spirit (vs 13) and claims that this one Jesus is the saviour of the whole world (vs 14).

All of this is in the context and the covering of love.

"So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him," he continues in verse 16.

In the next chapter, 1 John 5:

Look at all these references to belief and faith! How Pauline? No, how gospel!

But note how it's all covered in love.


How does John, the Galilean apostle, summarise all this?


The Galilean apostle John claims that the commandment of God is (1) we believe in the name of Jesus (how Pauline, right? No! Paul didn't come up with this himself!) and (2) we love one another (How Jesus, right? Yes! And by the way, in the gospel of John, Jesus reiterated that belief was important - again and again.).

How do we know that God abides in us? John says by the Spirit. The same Spirit that was poured out over both the Galileans and the Gentiles, both people groups, and was promised for the whole world. That same Spirit guarantees that the same Jesus, Father and Holy Spirit is in all who believe in this Jesus. There are no two Spirits, no two gospels, no two Kingdoms. And this belief in this Jesus leads to a life of love, which goes beyond just the Law's outward requirements but now includes an inner change - a 'writing of the Law on [our] hearts'. And this love is what spreads the Kingdom of God over the earth, so that the Spirit may be found everywhere on this planet and, who knows, perhaps even the cosmos?

Ligurian said:

Jesus didn't send His Apostles from Galilee to the Judeans, He sent them to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The kingdom is still divided, and the 10 tribes called Israel lived (those within Palestine, not those scattered among the nations) north of Samaria, while the nation called Judean was south of Sam laria. Paul was part of the southern house, because Benjamin was given to Judah when the kingdom was divided.

Click to expand...

All this is interesting but not proving anything about there being two gospels.

Ligurian said:

I can't for the life of me understand why the Apostles of Galilee would have wanted to walk in Jewry (when Jesus went out of His way to avoid it, and stay alive long enough to complete His mission)... with the weight of all of Matthew 23 and John 8 and the Revelation... they packed up and moved to the epicenter of the people who killed Jesus for His inheritance Matthew 21:38. Wait. What? That's the stuff of nightmares.

Click to expand...

I don't really understand what you're saying here. It sounds like we're agreeing.

Ligurian said:

You two have been proving my point, over and over again, without ever being aware of having done so. Thank you.

Matthew 13:10-11 And the Disciples came, and said unto Him, Why speakest Thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to them it is not given."

_______________________________
The Good News of the Kingdom of God.

The entry point for the Christians of Israel is the date that John entered prison,
according to Matthew 4:12-17 and Peter tr. by Mark 1:14-15.

Matthew 21:32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen [it], repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

Matthew 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven...

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.

Click to expand...

Acts 28
23 They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus. 24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your ancestors when he said through Isaiah the prophet:

26 “‘Go to this people and say,
“You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
27 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’

28 “Therefore I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!”