Time to read: approximately 12-16 minutes including to read Bible passages
Introduction
The New Testament is part of the Templist Canon. However, not every part of it is truthful. It is primarily a historical text for the Templist, from which some good lessons can be drawn. This section further explains the Gospel of Mark, and criticizes its contents where criticism is necessary. It is ideally read with reference to the Bible, especially the New Catholic bible, or it will not make sense. Not because the NCB is the only bible authorized by Templism, but because it is the Bible upon which The Author writes the commentaries. This commentary will not touch upon topics already touched upon in Commentaries on Matthew.
It will be noticed that, compared to Matthew, Mark focuses primarily upon the miracles of Jesus. He does this to convince the Romans that Jesus is divine; Romans required proof of a divine appearance. Mark was therefore very important in furthering the aims of Wotan. The working of miracles and divine appearances, in Christianity as in pagan faiths, is the bedrock of all religious claims. There is not to be found a “theological” argument for the existence of gods in all antiquity, for this reason. Primary evidence of the workings of gods was deemed sufficient, and is sufficient. Modern Christians who believe Jesus only to have been a man are profoundly mistaken; in believing so they refute a large part of their book, and undermine the traditional justification for their entire religion as well as all other traditional religions.
Mark 1:16-20
So it is seen that Jesus acquired his earliest followers from those of modest means and modest employment. Such people are easy to convert. For one thing, they are easy for any man to access. For another, they are usually malcontents, who certainly hope that someone can increase their importance.
Mark 2:15-17
Related to the above, also from those of low character. Such people would become his earliest followers, though Jesus would truly improve their lives to make them better.
Mark 2:18
Among the Jews of this time, there were many competing prophets. There are always many competing prophets, whenever a people are in disarray; the people seek someone to assuage their troubles, or to improve their lives. There have been likewise, in other places, many competing “self-help” philosophies during such times, such as during the Hellenistic period, or in the current period of the West. Such times are invitations for the gods, like Wotan, to compete with each other for personal influence over the course of human history. This passage is a testament to the manner in which Jesus competed with his rivals for followers.
Mark 2:23-28
The same point as above applies. Also to be found within this passage is the distinction between a divine command “made for man” (i.e, what we call a suggestion) and a divine command “for which man is made” (i.e, what we call a law). This is not to suggest that we created humans for the sake of their obedience to law; we did not create humanity. Rather, we regard humanity’s creation as an event that is instrumental in the following of our laws.
When a human is asked “what is water for?”, he answers “drinking, washing, etc.” despite the fact that he did not create water. Likewise when we are asked “what are humans for?”, we answer “following our laws”, among other things. The reader sees here that a purpose is nothing more than a desire. There is no philosophical relationship between a purpose and an act of creation.
Mark 3:22-26
This is an example of the facetiousness of Jesus. He is charged with casting devils out of people via the power of Satan. He counters that a house divided cannot stand. But what does Satan have to do with houses? Is it not plausible that Satan, being the lord of devils, could command devils to exit people? -Is it not plausible that Satan, having such a plausible power, might in fact use this power to further his own ends? Jesus’ response to this charge is completely inadequate. This kind of illogic is not befitting of a truthful prophet, but of a false one.
Mark 4:33-34
Apply to the comment regarding the use of parables in the Commentaries on Matthew.
Parables also offer the advantage of being vague. Thus they are difficult to criticize. You cannot “disagree” with a parable. You can disagree with the hidden meaning of a parable, but then the parable-speaker can always claim that you “misunderstand”. His parable places a significant amount of delay and doubt in the way of your disagreement, especially if orally transmitted. You must decode its meaning first before you can reply, and the meaning you decode is not certain to be the “true meaning”, if such a meaning even exists.
These are actually reasons to use parables, rather than not to use them. They are demonstrably a viable rhetorical method. These are also reasons, though, that show parables to be facetious rather than honest. They do not offer any honest substantive value, which is why populations of honesty and substance (such as Germans) tend not to like them. Parables are to be heard by those of low intellectual virtue, and spoken by those of low integrity.
Mark 4:35-40
Here Jesus came into conflict with Neptune, who tried to thwart his project by killing him and his disciples before they could preach their faith elsewhere. But Jupiter rebuked his brother, and so he ceased.
Mark 5:10-13
The instrumentality of animals is true, and to be heeded.
Mark 5:27-34
A subtle hint at the nature of magic.
Mark 7:9-13
Here Jesus defends traditional wisdom, absolute respect towards one’s parents, against the doctrine of the Pharisees. As Christianity was, for a time, to become the predominant religion of the Germanic peoples, some fundamental aspects of traditional wisdom must have been maintained by Wotan, or else the Germanic peoples would be driven to complete degeneracy. It will be noticed that when Jesus lies, it is often in minor points that improve his popularity. But when he tells the truth, it is with regards to important points such as this.
Mark 9:33-35
It should not be at all difficult to find examples of those who desire for power, and attain it. It should be much more difficult to find examples of those who do not desire for power, and attain it. Especially as one considers each class of desirers in totality. Clearly, one is more likely to achieve an aim if they pursue it, than if they do not pursue it. This basic and intuitive fact is actually not contradicted by Jesus, as he says it in the particular context of the apostles, who he is free to rank as he desires.
Mark 10:20-31
This is the foundation of a religion that appeals to the impoverished. Those who cannot hope to attain riches in this life, and so must be given a hope to attain them in another life. Thus can the belief in an “otherworld afterlife” manipulate people into complacency. In this case, it manipulated the impoverished to follow Jesus, and encouraged the rich to become impoverished so as to assist the poor, thereby also increasing the popularity of Jesus in the eyes of the poor.
We likewise believe that giving to the poor can in many cases be good, and that giving to the public is always good. By doing so, one does improve the quality of their reproductive afterlife, as well as of their memorial afterlife. But we do not pretend that giving will make anyone rich, nor do we mandate that one must give so much that they become poor. Giving is a trade that one freely makes or chooses not to make: wealth in exchange for the benefit of society and of one’s reputation in society. This is a trade that is made, oftentimes, in addition to the fact that the acquisition of wealth itself is the consequence of an act that benefits society, or some portion of it.
Mark 13:28-31
Here, combined with the previous passages that this passage is in the context of, you have perhaps the greatest repudiation of the truthfulness of Christianity. Jesus foretells the end of heaven (i.e the sky) and Earth during the generation of those he speaks to. In the early history of Christianity, all Christians thought the end times to be imminent. When no such thing occurred, they had to adapt. This lie was told in order to amplify the attractiveness of the religion, and to increase the boldness of the early Christians, who really felt as if they had nothing to lose in this life, for everything would soon end. Thus were martyrs motivated.
Mark 13:32-33
Some say that this passage repudiates the above. But obviously, Jesus would not immediately contradict himself. Rather, he means to say that the exact time within the generation is not known. He even specifies “days or hours” rather than “time”, as “days or hours” exist within generations.
But some argue further that “time” in the Bible does not mean what we think it means. That some eras of time are actually metaphors for other eras of time. Why would they be? Who would have the motivation to create such an unenlightening metaphor? Such “metaphors” are only assumed when it is also assumed that the Bible must always speak truth - that it is impossible for it to be true that the Bible reckons dates that are simply wrong. But how can it be established, a priori, that the Bible speaks truth, without investigating the truth or falsehood of its claims?
Mark 16:16-18
While no Christian can be exactly a “true Christian” as a result of the facetiousness of parts of Christianity, some Christians are more true to the teachings of Jesus than others. Charismatic Christians are true to this passage in particular.
Protestant denominations tend to be truer to Christianity in general. They are sincere Christians who follow the doctrine wherever it leads them, without snobbishly adhering to emotional, political, and ecclesiastical biases. Wotan has ensured that his Germanic people have a tendency to become Protestant. For, he says, “honest individual analysis is a Germanic quality, while emotionally motivated sophistry for the sake of blindly maintaining tradition and authority is a quality of Mediterranean and other peoples.”
Among the less sincere Christians are those who assume political organizations of men to be able to have Christian authority, as with Catholics and the Orthodox. They assume this because the Bible itself was curated by a political organization of men. The fact that a group of men had to ascertain which books were in themselves sacred and canonical and which were not, however, does not mean that men are themselves sacred or canonical. -It is not as if the curation of the Bible was justified by the mere fact that men curated it. Rather, it was justified by the contents and context of books themselves, as happened to be determined by men. If I asked you to edit a book “for grammar”, does this mean that I grant you the capacity to make the rules of grammar, and to decide authoritatively on all issues of grammar for other people? No, it means that you, like many other people, have the capacity to judge grammar to an acceptable level of correctness. Likewise was the Bible curated “for canon”.
But sincerity and gifts from Wotan are not the same as goodness. The most perfectly traditional Christians are often Catholics, for example. The Catholics and Orthodox create a political system for the gods to affect, so as to affect human events at large. We reaffirm that all Christian denominations with traditional ideas are to be accepted. Christianity, after all, was not created for the sake of truth, but for the sake of utility. While it reflects positively upon the cognitive virtue of a Christian if they are able to follow the doctrine as truthfully as possible, it also reflects positively upon the utility of a Christian if they accept any traditional denomination for any reason. Particular traditional denominations may also be indicative of certain virtues other than cognitive virtues, regardless of how truthful and sincere they are. Christianity was born of lies, and that is perfectly fine.
March 23, 2022