Name:Mark Stilt •
Title: TO: Simcha Jacobovici •
Date posted: 04/08/07 9:12
Q: Sir,
I concur with your assessment that Jesus was probably married to Mary Magdalene.
IF he was, then the scriptures provide an interesting set of clues as to the name and life of at least ONE of his children.
Acts 12:12 states that "Mary" was "the mother of John, whose surname was Mark".
The name of John Mark's father is never stated outright; but his mother Mary is called the sister of the apostle Barnabas (Colossians 4:10).
John Mark (aka: Mark, Marcus) was at a fairly early age put under the care of his Uncle Barnabas and the Apostle Paul. For a time he accompanied them FROM Jerusalem (Acts 12:25), but finally deserted them on their mssionary journey, in Perga; and returned himself to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13).
An interesting incident though, occured when Paul and Barnabas brought Mark with them to Paphos. There, they confronted a "false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus" (Acts 13:6) .
Bar-jesus means 'son of Jesus'.
In my opinion, Paul and Barnabas may have found it useful to confront this false prophet (who claimed paternity from Jesus) with a genuine son of their Savior; thereby exposing his false claims for the lies that they were.
Eventually, Mark was again shuffled to the care of the Apostle Peter, who fondly refers to him as 'my son" (1 Peter 5:13); although he certainly was NOT the biological son of Peter!
I find this shuffling off of the young Mark to the care of his uncle and of the various Apostles to be mute testimony of the hearfelt need to keep this child of Christ away from those in Jerusalem who might want to do him in (in spite of his manifest yearning to be home with his mother).
Indeed, his safety was of such importance that Paul reminded the Colossian saints, that they had received "COMMANDMENTS" touching Mark
(Colossians 4:10), that "if he come unto you, receive him".
Later of course, he authored the Gospel of Mark (apparently under the direction of Peter), in which he makes (what I believe) is a reference to himself in the following verses:
"And there followed him" (Christ) "A CERTAIN YOUNG MAN, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him; And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked." (Mark 14:51, 52)
This strange account is found ONLY in the Gospel of Mark; and the oblique reference to the unnamed young lad, likely reflects his own memory of the incident that occured to him when he was (I would guess) about 6 years of age.
His refusal in his account to openly identify himself by name, MAY have been out of modesty; Did not even the Apostle John likewise refuse to name himself in his own Gospel? Did he not refer to himself instead as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20); AND as that "other disciple" (John 20: 2-8)???
Mark's reticence however, MAY have been more practical. Perhaps (as he matured) he realized, that it INDEED was not wise to call attention to his identity as the offspring of Jesus, thereby bringing the wrath of the authorities of Rome or Jerusalem down upon his head.
As a sort of side note, I find it telling that Jesus would have named one of his own children after the man that he clearly admired as a prophet and as "more than a prophet" (Luke 7:24-28 and Matthew 11: 7-11); and to whom he had submitted for the ordinance of baptism.
Name:light •
Date: 04/17/07 14:34
A: Way to put your thinking cap on... Good for you!
Name:Mark Stilt •
Date: 04/18/07 7:12
A: My post (to Simcha Jacobovici) was made TEN DAYS AGO!!
In it, I presented a scenario that I've NEVER seen (or heard) discussed anywhere else, by anybody else!!!
As far as I know, it is a completely new theory...............FURTHERMORE, it's drawn directly from scripture (references ARE provided).
Briefly, it may be summarized as follows:
(1) I have shown (directly from scripture) the name of Jesus' and Mary's child;
(2) I have shown some of the names of THEIR child's companions during much of his lifetime;
(3) I have documented a portion of his travels; and
(4) his subsequent career as the author of one of the four gospels!!
My theory hinges on ONLY ONE assumption: that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were indeed married. If they were, then scripture provides (as it were) "the rest of the story".
NOBODY during this entire time, has so much as addressed this topic, (except for "light", who offered me a sort of {very appreciated} 'congratulations'!!!!).
Apart from his(?) comment, NOBODY ELSE has responded!!
Instead, people argue and preach (throughout their various posts) about their interpretations of philosophy, religion, poetry and SEEMINGLY every topic under the sun, EXCEPT those things that can be solidly demonstrated!!
Perhaps the arguments in my post are so strong that they can't be gainsayed!!
If my presentation can't be shown to be false, WHY is there (nonetheless) so much disinterest??
After all, isn't this entire website (sort of) dedicated to the proposition that Jesus and Mary were a couple??
If somebody thinks my post is wrong, PLEASE show me how it is wrong!!
Name:Mark Stilt •
Date: 04/18/07 22:23
A: No takers????
I guess my arguments are too solid for rebuttal!!
Apparantly, once I get around to addressing a topic, there remains nothing more to say.
Sincerly,
Mark Stilt
Name:Nate •
Date: 05/20/07 23:53
A: Hello Mark.
This is a very well-done and interesting bit of work you've done. It makes compelling sense! I, for one, am convinced you're correct. I'm a former Baptist minister and have enough training to appreciate the importance and intelligence of your sleuthing. I have saved it to my PC.
I'm sorry no one else here has responded to this startling post of yours. Yes, it does seem everyone here is interested in preaching "the gospel" (or some version thereof), or some other form of dogmstism rather than discussing the tomb. Religious zealots have tunnel vision and diarrhea of the keyboard.
Thank you Mark for adding a very startling and important piece to the Jesus Puzzle.
As an aside, John 11:1-3, and 36 indentify "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to be Lazarus, not John. It's merely church tradition that ascribes authorship of the Gospel of John to John the apostle.
Namaste,
Nathaniel Merritt
Name:deeu •
Date: 10/11/07 13:06
A: This post is not the first time I have heard/read/watched this theory...you haven't stumbled across anything new...I have watched at least one documentary which discusses this very suggestion. Off hand I cannot remember the name of the video, when I do recall I will post.
Name:Mark Stilt •
Date: 10/17/07 0:29
A: To deeu -
If you've found evidence of ANYBODY else presenting this theory, I would be MOST interested, as I have found nothing resembling it in ANY of the current models.
I could be wrong though..........So please, if you can provide any positive information per your claim, I would surely like to see it.
As far as I'm aware, I'm the only person who has made this particular claim, supported by this particular evidence; And to date, nobody has been able to refute my position.
If you can prove me wrong, please proceed.
Name:Mark Stilt •
Date: 11/19/07 0:05
A: To: deeu and all other challengers -
I've waited a full month (since my last entry), for evidence that the particular scriptural scenario that I've presented on this page, has been put forward in print (or any other media), by ANYONE!!!!
So far, nobody has risen to that challenge.
I'm not saying that this historical reconstruction has never been put forward before now. Only that I've never seen it. Although the world has had nearly two thousand years to see this plain scriturally sound connection, I AM (as far as I'm aware) THE FIRST TO PUT FORWARD THE IDEA THAT 'JOHN MARK' IS THE OFFSPRING OF JESUS CHRIST AND MARY. I intend to hold on to this claim until proven otherwise.
Nevertheless, the challenge is still open.
Still, I have an even greater challenge for anybody up to it...................show me WHY this scenario (so clearly outlined in the Bible) HAS NOT been presented before; and why it is not being seriously discussed now that it has been put forward. This entire site after all is devoted to the proposition that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married! It seems however that it has turned into a site for kooks and cranks to discuss everything under the sun EXCEPT that idea!
If Jesus and Mary were married, we no longer need to wonder if they had issue or not. The record plainly states that Mary had a son and that his name was John Mark. We can follow some of his history through the pages of Holy Writ. What else is there to debate?
