IMHO, truth is not something we'll find within the gospels unless we're willing to have faith that these gospels are truth. Then of course, they become truth not because they are true but because we choose to believe they are.

I agree. However, in this case since I don't understand the way "authority" is used I wouldn't know what I was believing or what I was not believing.

The question is really: "What is authority?"

Jesus wasn't part of the orthodox clergy. It would be like if I walked into a Presbyterian church and started teaching. Further, the custom is to refer to accepted writings as if one is only conveying the wisdom of others. This was was part of the form of the scribes who were devoted to the Torah. Never mind that rabbis routinely disagreed on interpretation.

When I quote someone you respect, I'm coopting that person's standing. If I confidently tell you something I figured out on my own, I lack standing. You're apt to be amazed at my audacity.

By the way, Mark is my favorite of the gospels. Mark's Jesus is fiery and passionate (no pun intended.) Mark's Jesus is obviously human. Note that in iconography Mark is the guy sitting at a desk with a lion sitting beside him.

This is more or less how I read it as well. The other rabbis always prefacing there comments with as it says in the book of X .... whereas Jesus just started preaching without referring to the Torah.

I just realized something.

The audience's response is one of amazement but I think the one guy who stood up really represents the voice of dissent to Jesus' authority. That voice of dissent is driven out and called a demon.

Do you have any thoughts on the relationship between the driving out of demons and Jesus' authority?

Happy new years!

i would have thought the demon speaking out and saying 'i know thee' was significant in the fact that he in fact recognized jesus as being whatever it is he was when other people didnt. demons are pretty smart, right? maybe that was how jesus knew it was a demon speaking and not the man he inhabited.

if i was reading this as a narration that is the way it would appear to me. and if i was thinking it to be anything else i wouldnt be reading it in the first place.

in other words, i am not reading the bible to debunk it...but i read things and try to see what they really mean, why they were written...what they reflect of reality. i try to be uncritical but inquisitive.

Now why would you think that Jesus was an evil demon? How is this more likely than the prima facie interpretation of Jesus casting out demons?

the question of 'authority' is extremely important, I agree. But I even though I don't go to Church or read the Bible, I am very defensive about Jesus, for some reason. I think it is my cultural heritage. I can't think anything ill of him whatever. Whatever bad has come out of Christianity, and there has been plenty, has been the work of followers.

hi deckard-
i dont have problems with any of the verses, because i know most of them are unreliable so what does it matter? it is using certain ones to enforce particular beliefs that serve elite groups that used to enrage me. (i dont get angry much any more.) but there could be so many ways of interpreting the verse, and in general i look for a positive meaning than a bad one.

i could go through the bible and say 'here is why these words were written, so that they could be used for such and such a ...oh, that is what you meant then? ...

i think it is important when trying to find any meaning in the biblical or any scriptural writings, it is important to try and dissociate oneself from the harm they have been used for, and you are finding better meanings on your own. if you are thinking that someone like you would be burned at the stake by the hierarchy in the church, (and someone like me would as well) that is most likely true, but why think that way?

so if any doubts plague a person, they are easily resolved...

Perhaps Jesus is the demon, or in any case evil, and the dissenter in the crowd was the only one who recognized it. Everyone else was mesmerized by this thing called "authority".

But anyway... there is something kind of freaky about someone speaking from personal authority. It's an aspect of Protestants: that they feel they need no priest... they believe that every person has a direct connection to God. Thus we have the strange case of the man (some subsection of the Mormons) who realized that God wanted him to kill his wife. In his community such connections to God were to be honored. So the guy talks to his brothers about it and manages to convince them. And there you have it.

My most recent case of being freaked out by this type of thing was when George W. Bush announced that Iraq was an immediate threat. When asked by the press to explain more about that, he said: "You're just going to have to trust me." I was driving in my car at the time and I had to pull over to the side of the road and contemplate this: You're just going to have to trust me. What.... the.... I was just a tad profoundly confused that day. I could blab on about this sort of thing... maybe later. Happy New Years Day!!!

I don't know. I trust the Government we have - as much as I need to anyway.

Spiritual authority - I bow to the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, every day. I trust the teachings of the Buddha but the teaching says it is totally up to me how I conduct myself and what becomes of me as a result. I like it like that. If I was Christian, I would have to be a Disciple. I couldn't be a believer. I don't think there is any point in believing unless you're willing to walk the walk.