aa5874

Your reply is just empty RHETORIC.

Are you claiming that I don't need any written evidence in gMark to show that my theory is GOOD.

This is the first time where I have heard that it is a waste of time to find as much written evidence as possible to support one's position.

What a laugh!!

I have too much evidence from gMark.

But, I am done yet.

gMark has NO genealogy for his Son of God Jesus.

What FLESH did Jesus the son of God have?

gMark's Jesus had NO FLESH.

TedM

aa, laugh all you want, but it is clear to me that you have no need to find "as much written evidence as possible" to support your position because you have made it VERY clear that anything with supernatural elements CANNOT be historical in your mind. Even ONE is enough for you. It is a waste of YOUR time to look for more because your mind is made up on that matter. You have spent hours and hours when all you needed to spend is about 1 minute.

Let's see how flexible you are:

If a new gospel was found--call it gTruth--and it contained stories about a Jesus who preached and was crucified that all sound perfectly plausible (ie natural), BUT it had one particular story in which this Jesus walked on water, would you conclude that the entire book of gTruth was fictional? Go ahead, give it a try...

jakejonesiv

AAA, you need to ask yourself one question. When the disciple saw Jesus walking on the water, did they see a man of flesh or a phantom (gk. phantasma)? Mark 6:49.

jakejonesiv

Hi AA,

I have a quick question.

According to Mark 14:38, Jesus said "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" whose flesh was he talking about?

Jake

aa5874

What incredulity!! What ludicrous things you post!

Because you cannot find any support for your supernatural speculations about gMark's Jesus you are now making bizarre accusations that I have too much evidence.

Are you for real?

What a laugh!!

Well, we have a gospel according to Mark that is called gMark.

And the preaching, activities, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus in gMark all SOUND perfectly IMPLAUSIBLE and FICTIONAL and you STILL have reason to think gMark's Jesus was human with the capability of the supernatural.

What if you found a new gospel---call it gFICTION---and it contained the VERY SAME events as gMark, would you conclude that gFICTION was a work of history?

Go ahead give it a try.

jakejonesiv

AA,

Those observations are all good and fine, but if you can't explain why Jesus said his flesh was weak according to Mark 14:38, you are going to have to give up your assertion that gMark's Jesus had NO FLESH.

Are you up to the task?

Jake

TedM

I gave you a very simple scenario to see how honest you would be in your response and perhaps help you see things in a more honest way. You have refused to engage. Why? I was hoping you would not be this way. In my mind your evasion = a coverup of your true intentions...ie an agenda.

This isn't about MY views aa. I said NOTHING about MY views in the paragraph you are responding to. I tested you and you failed miserably. I think you are afraid to admit the truth about your agenda. I predict you will also fail to answer jakejones's challenge. Very pathetic aa. BYE BYE for good this time.

aa5874

But, your task is such a PIECE of Cake.

It will take a few minutes.

Examine Mark 14.37. gMark's Jesus SCOLDS his supposed disciple, Peter.

Mr 14:37 - And now in Mark 14.38, gMark's Jesus ADMONISHES the disciples to WATCH and PRAY to AVOID temptation.

Why should the disciples WATCH and PRAY? Their FLESH was weak and was liable to FALL to TEMPTATION.

It is obvious that in gMark Jesus was making reference to the FLESH of the disciples.

And now, Jesus in gMark would go back to pray and come back three times to find those weak FLESH disciples with HEAVY eyes.

Mark 14.39-41 You must have NOTICED that gMark's Jesus did NOT say MY FLESH is weak.

The author of gMark MISSED every opportunity to show that his Jesus had FLESH.

Now, Peter and the disciples would later PROVE their FLESH was INDEED weak in gMark.

Mark 14.50 Mark 14.71 The disciples' had FLESH and it was WEAK in gMark and FELL to TEMPTATION.

gMark's Jesus had NO FLESH. He NEVER Fell to TEMPTATION.

FLESH must FALL to TEMPTATION.

After all, that is what FLESH must DO.

The Jesus of gMark had NO FLESH.

Solo

One thing worth noting here is that Jesus does not deny being a phantasma as he gets in the boat. He merely says: 'cheer up, it is I, have no fear !'. I think Mark was deliberately playing with the dual nature of Christ, IOW poking fun at the Petrine view of Jesus as merely a fleshy idol - denying his complementary nature as a Spirit. I also read Matthew's account of Peter's unsuccesful walk on water as counter-ridiculing the Paulines. It was their insistence that the followers are 'Christ's' imitators that irked the Petrines. Matthew was saying to Mark (who was a Pauline): no follower of Christ could be like him - see even the first disciple, Peter, tried it on the sea and failed miserably.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Please, do not make UNSUBSTANTIATED claims here.

The unknown author of gMark did NOT mention any character called Paul and did NOT use a single VERSE or PHRASE that can be directly associated ONLY with the Pauline writings.

Incredibly, not even the same passages of Hebrew Scripture found in gMark are found in virtually ALL the so-called Pauline writings.

There is ZERO evidence in gMark that the unknown author was AWARE of any Pauline Christian Cult which should have been ALREADY known and spread throughout the Roman Empire.