Horatio Parker

Could just as easily be the other way around; the theology demands a dead(and rising) hero.

Diogenes the Cynic

No, because no Jewish theology ever demanded that. There is also no attested use of "son of man" (Ben Adam, Bar Enosh or ho Nios tou Anthropou) as a title for the Davidic Messiah or for anybody else in any Jewish literature (I cite Vermes on this). Mark 10:45 can only be an apologetic, not a premise.

JoeWallack

JW:
I've already demonstrated (as have others) that David is the model for Jesus' supposed Passion. C-BS accepts that the Psalms are a direct source for "Mark". Since "Mark", based on Paul, believed that his story of Jesus could be found in the Jewish Bible, "Mark" certainly thought his theology here was already in the Jewish Bible. Of course "Mark" proof-texts without embarrassment, but it is evidence that this theology already existed.

Bonus material for Solo = "Mark's" use of David as a source for his Jesus extends far beyond the Psalms. See how many parallels you can find between the David verses Jesus get the spirit stories (this explains the wild beasts reference in "Mark"). Now go to work Pal.

For those who need points sharply explained, obviously DtC is wrong here since "Mark's" primary source for theology is Paul.




Joseph

aa5874

The short gMark is NOT about a dead hero saving the world. It is the COMPLETE opposite. gMark's Jesus came to FULFILL Prophecy--the Words of the Lord in Isaiah, Daniel and other books of the Prophets.

gMark's Jesus story is an EXPLANATION for the Fall of the Temple and the desolation of Jerusalem.

gMark's Jesus NEVER preached to the world. gMark's Jesus came to the INSIDERS--the Elect.

Only the INSIDERS would be told of the Secrets.

The OUTSIDERS would be Deliberately confused by Parables lest they undersood and be Converted.

gMark's Jesus had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Salvation of the Jews or the World just Destruction of the Jews.

Mark 4 Part of the Jesus story of gMark is a fulfillment of so-called prophecy in ISAIAH 6--the desolation of Jerusalem c 70 CE

Isaiah 6

outhouse

thats not how the scribes who wrote mark ever starting their theology.


many people believed the nonsense passed on by oral tradaition.


stating a spritual ressurrection and then having people later interpreting it wrong as a physical one, doesnt have to be fiction, or mythology or as you put it a bad excuse. a bad excuse it never was

outhouse

I think the events in the temple created a buzz in the almost half a million people's ear, about the Galilean

his legend grew from that point on, and those who didnt know squat about him, backfilled his history based on what they wanted out of the shape of the movement as it evolved over the following decades

outhouse

we would have no legend


no mythology


no historical core

Horatio Parker

I'm not talking about Jewish theology.

I thought Daniel was an exception to this:

aa5874

The gMark Jesus story is MERELY the supposed fulfillment of prophecies in Hebrew Scripture.

In Daniel we see references to the Son of Man.

Daniel 7:13 Mark 14 gMark's Jesus story had NOTHING at all to do with Salvation by Sacrifice.

gMark's Jesus story is an EXPLANATION for the Fall of the Temple and the desolation of Jerusalem in order to BLAME the Jews for their calamities based on the Words of the Prophets.

In effect, the short gMark was Anti-Jewish propaganda and it was BELIEVED by the Non-Jewish communities in the 2nd century.

Diogenes the Cynic

The phrase in Daniel is used as a descriptor, not a title.There is no "the." Just (lit.) "with the clouds as a bar 'enash, one was coming." Bar enash just means "man" or "human being" in Aramaic. Daniel says he saw a figure that looked like a man, that's all.