Most Helpful Customer Reviews
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
An utterly amazing fable: A Messiah for the Samaritans!, August 28, 2010
This review is from: The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark and the True Origins of Christianity (Hardcover)
"It is difficult to quantify how significant the rediscovery of the ancient Christian relic is. As I understand it, the throne is nothing short of a Rosetta Stone filling in the gaps in our historical knowledge...of earliest Christianity." Stephan Huller
Agrippa's Messianic Code:
Stephan Huller, the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith, started with an alabaster throne, and concluded with the Agrippa Messianic thesis that resurrects the ancient hope of his people, the Samaritans narrated in his intensive book,'The Real Messiah,' The Throne of St. Mark and Origins of Christianity!
He wrote, "What is recognized now with this throne is that the Gnostics were indeed right. There was indeed a secret and ultimately cryptic message within Christianity which had been buried by centuries of persecutions. Now at last with the Real Messiah those original messianic truths are about to speak for themselves. I discovered something utterly amazing - a reference to an Old Testament prophesy which proved that St. Mark rather than Jesus was the Real Messiah...it became clear that something else about St. Mark was also revealed - he was Marcus Julius Agrippa, the last king of the Jews."
Marcus Agrippa:
The grandson of the Edomite Jewish king Herod the Great, and later ruler of his kingdom, was educated and lived in Rome since early childhood, up to 23 CE. He was imprisoned by Tiberius in 36, then appointed Tetrarch of territories NE of the Sea of Galilee. In 39 the Jewish areas of Galilee and Peraea, under Herod Antipas until then, were added. Agrippa's appearance passing through Alexandria, provoked anti Jewish riots. Yet, Claudius, added Judaea and Samaria to his kingdom in 41. Agrippa shows up in the NT book of Acts, mentioned in dialogue with St. Paul, does not seem to conceive of a personal messianic role replying, "Are you so quickly persuading me to become a Christian?" Agrippa's dramatic death in the amphitheatre of Caesarea is embellished in tradition, and Acts of the Apostles makes him responsible for the execution of James, John's brother, and for Peter's imprisonment.
Messiah for the Samaritans?
John's Gospel describes Jesus encounter with the Samaritan woman, is quoted saying to her, "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." This was the Jewish, and still is Coptic firm belief in the Jewish messiah. As a lay Alexandrine Coptologist, I find it admirable that the author found his way to Coptic culture, writing, "I can't believe it but the day has finally come when my article on the Cattedra di San Marco being the original Episcopal throne of Alexandria is available from the Journal of Coptic Studies."
While no Coptic scholar will buy any of his speculations, and the majority of his research which lacks both depth and precision, the book revives interest in Coptic Tradition of the Church of Alexandria. As a young kid, I learned most of Huller's stories, when I was 12, but none of them connected St. Mark with a throne, Bernice, or the Catechetical school, whose first dean was Panthenus the Sicilian Bee.
Book's Overall Review:
Stephan Huller used historical facts, but he twisted them, submerging the main thesis into a great many unrelated issues, repeatedly curving in alternate directions, manipulating dates, that cannot fit. Readers who were impressed with the story or author's apparent command of the subject matter, are novices to the Markan tradition.
The Annals: The Reigns of Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero (Oxford World's Classics)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Huller failed to join the dots, August 28, 2010
This review is from: The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark and the True Origins of Christianity (Hardcover)
"I took it upon myself to solve this mystery and quite literally spent hours trying to find anything resembling a hidden inscription buried in the carving." Stephan Huller
Prologue to a review:
I sympathize with Lisa, the authors wife, who he says putt up with the financial consequences, and years lost in realizing his confusedly interpreted dream. He became overwhelmed with unrelated addenda to his main research, and confused himself with its secondary links. For me the entertaining chapters of the weakly inter related book was a kind of a challenge, trying to debug the heavily entangled lines of his thought, short of becoming thus another 'Da Vinci code', or 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'. Huller failed to join the dots, distracted by some unrelated facts.
Marble Throne of St. Mark:
The marble cathedra of St. Mark: in his church at Venice, is of great antiquity (Secchi, La catedra di San Marco, Venice, 1835). The term cathedra was applied to the see of a bishop. The earliest use of the word in this sense occurs in Tertullian, Ca 160.
This episcopal throne (6th century), known as the Chair of St. Mark is of carved marble, Egyptian in workmanship, and doubtless brought from St. Mark's at Alexandria. ... This chair was brought from Alexandria to Constantinople at an early date, and sent in 630 by the Emperor Heraclius to the Patriarch of Grado, whence it was transported in 1520.
Coptic Tradition:
Canon Pasini believes that it was constructed to contain, the wooden seat used by St. Mark when he presided over the church at Alexandria, is not agreed by most Coptologists. The first Bishop of Alexandria was clearly Anianus, a shoemaker kobbler. The first to be called Papa was Archellaus, thirteenth bishop and ex-dean of the Catechetical school. Following the tradition of St Peter (the Seal of the Martyrs), the 17th Pope of Alexandria, Pope Kyrillos (1959-71) would refuse to sit on the papal throne of St. Mark, preferring to sit at the foot of the Throne.
A Samritan Discovery:
The presence of Samaritan letters on an Alexandrian holy relic was particularly intriguing, writes Huller, "I knew that most of the early heretics in Christianity were converts from this northern Israelite community. Alexandria also happened to represent both the largest Samaritan community outside of Palestine and was a virtual Mecca of Gnostic culture in the first two centuries of Christianity. [Indeed as Walter Bauer noted, we know so very little about Alexandrian Christianity before the end of the second century precisely because of its inherent Gnostic heretical bent.] Little by little all the separate lines of inquiry I was developing were coming together. ... It seemed everyone before us had recognized that this image on the backrest was messianic or at least apocalyptic. Yet we struggled to find anything interesting about this tamarisk tree. ... It was only when I began to pay attention to the obvious asymmetry in the way the tree was represented that it all came together for me."
The Bible of St. Mark: St. Mark's Church, the Altar & Throne of Venice
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
11 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Delusional nonsense. This book never should have been written., February 20, 2010
This review is from: The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark and the True Origins of Christianity (Hardcover)
"The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark" presents a very half baked delusional theory that never should have been put forth into writing. This theory is that a man named Marcus Agrippa, being only 8 years old at the time, was by the side of Jesus when he was arrested, by his side at the trial, and was actually the Barabbas that was set free by the people while Jesus was condemned to death. This book claims that " Christians go to their churches today to recognize Jesus as the messiah is thanks to the perverted testimony of church fathers who had their own agenda most likely with a burning political need to modify the developing religion". The book claims that Jesus was a better option than Marcus Agrippa because he was meek and mild and easy to manipulate and could be made to appear that he had always intended his kingdom not to be of this world but of another.
This book claims that little Marcus was there to watch Jesus be crucified and the claim is even made that his sister/wife, Berenice, most likely wiped the face of Jesus as he was being executed. It goes on to say this little Marcus was the true messiah and that Jesus died so that little Marcus could go on to fulfill the prophecy. The real messiah had been standing in front of the Jews throughout the ministry of Jesus and this was Marcus also known as Barabbas. "The Real Messiah" claims that the Jews were blinded by god in getting the wrong man so that the real messiah would survive. It states in the book: "Jesus was offered up as the sacrifice so that Marcus could go free and show himself to be the messiah."
"The Real Messiah" then claims that Marcus went on to write ALL four gospels and that Ireneaus was the one to split it up into four gospels. It claims that Irenaeus took it upon himself to split up the gospels this way. Irenaeus is referred to as the "slick car salesman of his time". The book claims that this one gospel written by Marcus Agrippa was the "super gospel." From the book it says: " it is my contention that there was indeed only one original gospel and that it was, as experts agree, written by a man called Mark". And who are these experts? None are given. I suppose Mark wrote all the other gospels and gnostic gospels too that never made it into the canonized bible?
According to the book, this super gospel contains an acrostic which is a series of lines that contain certain letters that are intended to spell out a significant word (only in the mind of this author) that forms a secret code. Matthew is the symbol M. Mark is the symbol R. Luke is the symbol Q. and John is the symbol H. As quoted in the book: "in the parallel Latin text the letters derived from each name are M, R, K, and A." The claim is then made "It isn't too hard to piece together what the original editor is really saying, the super gospel was written by Mark". It says then " it is obvious that the fourfold gospels were produced at the same time and in the same place". Even though there have been tons of scholars that have proven beyond a doubt that the gospels were not all written by the same person and definitely not at the same time.
"The Real Messiah" then claims that this Marcus watched and approved of the Romans destroying the Jews and their temple in 70ce as part of his plan of being the messiah. It says in the book: "there will be those who quite understandably suggest that a messiah of the Jews who supervises what amounts to a holocaust upon his own people is something of a departure from a redeemer...it was prophesized that the messiah would bring peace to the world though there is nothing to suggest that this state of affairs would be achieved without bloodshed and misery... in short the task of the messiah was to start again from scratch". It then goes on to say that this act by Marcus of watching the destruction of the temple and slaughter of the Jews in 70ce was all part of his messiah plans! The book claims that it is sure that Marcus was there to watch all the innocent Jews get slaughtered by the Romans but yet he did nothing because "it was quite clearly the work of god". According to this book, the same Marcus that is a devout Jew also ends up helping with the destruction of the temple in 70ce.
In the book, it states about little Marcus being next to Jesus at his trial: "by his side was the 8 year old Marcus - probably one of the most embarrassing prisoners the roman authorities could have held without express orders from Rome." What's embarrassing is the publication of this delusional book. It also states that " In at least one of the surviving gospel narratives, it is claimed that there was an established roman tradition of allowing one prisoner of the people's choice to go free at the time of the Passover." This is simply not true. Why would the Romans do that? There is not one historical record of the Romans ever doing this. This is another example of how this author takes the bible way too literally and as historical fact.
"The Real Messiah" also talks a lot of Philo of Alexandria which actually works against this theory. Philo should never have been brought into this but with this delusional theory it was unavoidable. The book claims that Philo was the uncle of Marcus. But the author fails to mention one extremely important fact: Philo, in all the many writings that he wrote and we still have he never ONCE mentions anything about a man called Jesus preaching and being crucified. The claim is made that Marcus went to see Philo right after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus, but Philo never writes anything about it?? The book makes the claim that the family of Marcus were followers of Jesus. That would include Philo but Philo never ONCE mentions anything about following a man named Jesus. The book says " in the mind of Philo everything was quite straightforward, Jesus appeared as a herald and a teacher, his primary role was to announce the coming of the promised messiah". The author never addresses why Philo said absolutely NOTHING about this in any of his writings. He never ONCE mentions Jesus. A life changing event such as this would surely have made it's way into Philo's work.. that's because it didn't happen.
On page 47 it states "yet it is important to note what Philo doesn't say". Yes, it is important to note that Philo never says anything in his writings about this event. Then it says on page 134 "fortunately for us, much of what Philo wrote in an apparently long lifetime still exists". That is true and of course Philo says NOTHING of his nephew Marcus returning from Judea with this awesome story of his buddy Jesus had just been crucified! The book claims that " Philo and his fellow Jewish thinkers must have been convinced that something incredible was about to happen in the period leading up to Marcus Agrippa's arrival.. the skies were shouting that the promised messiah was at hand.. and then in 37ce, their prayers were answered." And does Philo ever write one word about this world changing event? NO! The book says: "Philo is as good as admitting here that there was indeed an enthronement in the city during Agrippa's visit, but his version doesn't involve Agrippa". That's because it didn't happen like this author desperately wishes that it did.
In this book, the veracity of Philo and the historian Josephus are discredited many times. It consistently makes the claim that the most important historian of this time, Josephus, was wrong. Josephus wrote that there were two Marcus Agrippas instead of the just the one that this author attributes everything to. Josephus clearly makes more sense here and why would he make that up? Marcus was a VERY popular name in these times and that is something that the author of this book has a real hard time understanding. Every time the name Marcus comes up anywhere around this period of history, the claim is automatically made that it must be Marcus Agrippa.
According to Josephus the Marcus that the author is referring to would have been in his 50s when he came to Alexandria so the book refutes Josephus and makes Marcus only 8 or 9 years old being born around 29ce. Josephus claimed that Pilate was removed from office in 36ce due to his poor handling of a Samaritan messianic meeting which this book then claims that meant the trial of Jesus. The year of 36ce messes up the 37ce year based in this book so Josephus is once again refuted. The book states: " why should I consider that my opinion is correct when it flies in the face of one of the most fundamental texts (writings of Josephus) dealing with this period of history?" It then says "well, first of all there can be no doubt that the throne is too small for an adult". This is because it was not created to actually be sat upon! There is a body of scholarly literature that claims the throne was not designed to be sat upon.
This brings us to the throne. And what is provided as the evidence of these absurd claims? On a vacation the author took, he saw the throne of Mark and comes up with this story. He says "I asked myself, how did a wandering disciple of Jesus such as Mark, sworn to a life of modesty, ever end up being enthroned?" The throne is small. It is a miniature sized throne that was obviously not created to actually be sat upon. The book claims that this throne was actually made for a little boy (Marcus) to sit in. It claims that this little boy was sent to Alexandria to scatter the enemies of the Jews and be their messiah. It says: "it is easy to see how the vast majority of Jews living in and around Alexandria would have seen Marcus as being the very savior they had been promised for so long" Umm... no, it would not be easy to see why they would accept an 8 year old boy claiming to be their king. Once again showing the author's belief in taking the Old Testament stories literally the claim is made: "was not king...
Read more ›
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
