Mark in the Gospels who Discples was he ?
115362
In the Bible there are 12 disciples: Simon Peter, James and John(called sons of thunder) Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James, Thaddaeus, Simon, Judas the Iscariot. Mark 3:16-19 Marks name was actually John and he was later a companion of Paul and Barnabas.
508860
Allow me to rephrase.. Yes it changes the meaning. But ((why)) are such things in the bible when we know they were added later? But there are more verses which were added (the NIV indicates them in footnotes). So, if such things were added, then who knows what else was added or removed?\n\nBTW, do you know about the "Secret Gospel of Mark"? This is a gem indeed. It answers the difficulty of Mark 10:46 (ie. what happened at Jericho?) and demonstrates nicely how they removed things they didn't like ;)
22874
It was really Him.  Remember when He was resurrected, He showed Himself to His disciples.  In the Bible it records that Thomas even felt the marks from the crucifixion:\n\nJohn 20:27\n\n27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.\n\nIn addition, many many people who were living on the American continent after the resurrection of Christ felt the marks from the crucifixion.
222945
This is true. :) Matthew (Levi) did [seem to] want to prove to the Jewish that Jesus was actually the Messiah, thus all the Old Testament stuff.\nI would guess an original Hebrew copy cannot be found because of the persecution. The Greek copies were probably made prior to the Hebrew version being destroyed. The copies were likely sent out to others, while the copier, I would imagine kept the original for himself to use. Only specualtion, of course.\n\n***\nOh, and borrowing heavily from Mark? Probably because the gospel was written a time after the events occured. He may have wanted to keep his facts straight. Or it could have been a coincidence, seeing as there were writing about the same thing.
1016380
Jews! Jesus was a Jew. \nChristianity came from a mix of Judiasm and Paganism...
1009173
Where people miss this is, Jesus is not "condemning" their answer. They got the answer right. But because they did recognize who did the fathers will, then they are able to recognize their Father's will. Basically, Jesus took the, "we didn't know" excuse away from them, and corrected them, so they would repent.\n\nJesus was helping them, by showing them the errors of their way. They were human, just like me and you. We all need help, don't we?
911572
From  Matthew Henry's Consice Commentary on the Whole Bible concerning Matthew 16:12-20\n\n"Verses 13-20 Peter, for himself and his brethren, said that they were assured of our Lord's being the promised Messiah, the Son of the living God. This showed that they believed Jesus to be more than man. Our Lord declared Peter to be blessed, as the teaching of God made him differ from his unbelieving countrymen. Christ added that he had named him Peter, in allusion to his stability or firmness in professing the truth. The word translated "rock," is not the same word as Peter, but is of a similar meaning. Nothing can be more wrong than to suppose that Christ meant the person of Peter was the rock. Without doubt Christ himself is the Rock, the tried foundation of the church; and woe to him that attempts to lay any other! Peter's confession is this rock as to doctrine. If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived. Our Lord next declared the authority with which Peter would be invested. He spoke in the name of his brethren, and this related to them as well as to him. They had no certain knowledge of the characters of men, and were liable to mistakes and sins in their own conduct; but they were kept from error in stating the way of acceptance and salvation, the rule of obedience, the believer's character and experience, and the final doom of unbelievers and hypocrites. In such matters their decision was right, and it was confirmed in heaven. But all pretensions of any man, either to absolve or retain men's sins, are blasphemous and absurd. None can forgive sins but God only. And this binding and loosing, in the common language of the Jews, signified to forbid and to allow, or to teach what is lawful or unlawful. "
750755
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living God." \n\n 17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.\n\nFirst we need to understand what Jesus was looking for, "Who do you say I am?"  Peter answer was correct; the Christ, the Son of the living God, sooooooo...  Jesus was stating that upon this rock, or in modern day terms upon this confession He will build His church (Jesus the Son of God being the chief cornerstone of the church)  He also said "for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven".  It was a Revelation that simply put was reveled to Peter by God, and not himself\n\nother passages make clear that Jesus Himself is the foundation. The chief cornerstone was the foundational stone in ancient architecture, from which all measurements began, so every other stone was laid in relationship to the cornerstone. Clearly this position belongs to Jesus.
195434
Each Gospel was writen by a diferent person into a diferent reality, they are no chronological and don't tell the same things to people. Each one show a diferent angle of this person called Jesus to other people. They were writen also in diferent times (The gospel of John is the latest, writen about 100 years after Jesus' death). So, Mark and Luke, didn't considered important tell that part to the people they have writen for
1068420
Flavius Josephus ?\n\n*he was a jew that lived around the time of Jesus ,they have an original manuscript that claims Jesus is the messiah.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nthis could be totally wrong*
657134
Regardless of whether Jesus was a real guy, I think that the meme we see today was started by Peter and Paul.  It seems unlikely that Jesus could have come up with all of that stuff about eternal salvation on his own.
475306
While millions were celebrating the memory of the passion and death of the savior the National Geographic Society unveiled the first modern translation of the third-century Coptic translation of the Gospel of Judas on April 6 in Washington. \nThe Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John focus on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and include events supposedly related to the life of Jesus. \nHowever, the Gospel of Judas and the others, the text of which was always been known, in whole or in part, really are texts attempting to bolster the importance of the personalities they are named after, not of Jesus. It is therefore really amazing that it is being given such a level of credence.\nWe are in the age of the media and the media are more interested in novelty and money but least in truth. Consider the media reports regarding the Pope’s Homily on Maundy Thursday. The headlines screamed “POPE BANISHES GOSPEL OF JUDAS, PORTRAYS HIM AS DOUBLE-CROSSER.”\nDid they expect him to adopt the Gospel of Judas forthwith and banish the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in a jiffy!!!\nDoes it really matter the circumstances that surround the death of Jesus? Does it change who He was or what He did for us? \nThere are some people around the world who seem to be constantly seeking to discredit the Church in some form or the other. The challenges before the Church today are no different from those faced by the early Christians after Jesus died.\nFalse/sensationalistic reports spread like wildfire, fuelled by unprincipled journalism.\nHowever, responding to such malicious slander is not productive. But it doesn’t mean that one should never respond. The important thing is how one responds. If your response is of anger and in self-defense then you are only walking into the trap but your response should be gentle, firm, respectful, and in defense of the truth.
616893
jesus deserved to di3!! if i was around back then i woulda f*ckin killed him myself the dirty jewish b*stard. and i would laughed and pointed while he was hangin there on the cross and i would threw stones and p00p at him and whipped him until he finally d!ed.
659740
Mark of the Beast \nRevelation 13:16-18 states: \n"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666."
70418
If you claim that Jesus was only one of these three choices:::\n\n1) A lunatic (for claiming to be God in the flesh)\n2) A liar (for claiming to be God in the flesh)\n3) Exactly who He said He was (God in the flesh)\n\nthen you give me no choice but to say he was a liar.\n\nHowever, there are a lot more possibilities than the few three you give.\n\nJesus could have been one of the many people thought to have been the messiah, but that were proven wrong by time. Even the book of Acts in the Christian's New Testament lists two such false messiahs, Judah the Galilean and Theudas. \n\n          Act 5:36-37  For before these days rose \n          up Theudas, boasting himself to be \n          somebody; to whom a number of men, about \n          four hundred, joined themselves: who was \n          slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, \n          were scattered, and brought to nought. \n          37  After this man rose up Judas of \n          Galilee in the days of the taxing, and \n          drew away much people after him: he also \n          perished; and all, even as many as obeyed \n          him, were dispersed. \n\nWhat if the followers of Theudas or Judah the Galilean said the same thing, that either they were who they said they were, or they were lunatics or liars, or the messiah, with no other choice?\n\nAnd the reason they say that Jesus was only a good man and not Gd, is because we have Gd's promise in Hosea 11:9, where He said, "..for I am Gd and not a man." We have the same thing in Numbers 23:19 \n\n          Numbers 23:19 "Gd is not a man, that he \n          should lie; neither the son of man, that \n          he should repent: hath he said, and shall \n          he not do it? or hath he spoken, and \n          shall he not make it good?" \n\nwhich means IF Gd were a man, He would be a liar, since all men lie. IF Gd were a man he would need to repent, since all men sin.\n\nGd becoming a human, or a human becoming Gd, is the hallmark of the pagan faiths, where the stories of children of a god and a human mother, or the incarnation of a god, were told. Pharaoh thought he was a god, and the emporers of ancient empires were thought to have been gods, or the children of gods.
593235
cheri_da_rn: he meant carpentry!\n\nI wonder, was it before or after he got married to Mary Magdalene? You couldn't really hold it against the guy if he was already married and THEN found out that he was supposed to be the Messiah, and die on the cross, etc.
720134
peter was upside down on the cross. and it was in rome.\nthe word babylon is your past.and it doesn't say who was killed first peter or paul.