JoeWallack

JW:
Check out my now Legendary (at least in my mind) Thread:

Was Jesus perfect according to "Mark" and "Matthew" where I demonstrate that "Mark's" Jesus was not perfect. The beginning of "Mark" also makes clear that the Jesus part of Jesus Christ was definitely not perfect BC (before Christ):

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_1

4 "John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.

5 And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

6 And John was clothed with camel`s hair, and [had] a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey.

7 And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

8 I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.

10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him:

11 And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased."

I think it's clear that "Mark's" Jesus was not perfect and was subject to the same Ironic literary style as every other character in "Mark" was. The only open question is whether Jesus Christ AC (after Christ -baptism) always makes correct predictions. A problem here though is trying to distinguish between instructions and predictions. Example:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_1

40 "And there cometh to him a leper, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

41 And being moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean.

42 And straightway the leprosy departed from him, and he was made clean.

43 And he strictly charged him, and straightway sent him out,

44 and saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

45 But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to spread abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into a city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter."

As always, even Jesus is subject to "Mark's" Ironic literary style. Jesus doesn't just tell the man to be quiet, he orders him to do so. But here, at the Beginning, when Jesus doesn't want anyone to know about his healing, the man tells everyone and everyone knows. This is Contrasted by the End where Jesus orders that everyone tell about his Passion so that everyone knows, yet no one tells anyone and no one knows. The Healing order doesn't appear to be a prediction, just a command, but is a step in the direction that Jesus may also be wrong about a prediction.

Personally I think "Mark" did intend his Jesus Christ to always make correct predictions but having his commands disobeyed was a major theme.



Joseph

Jesus. Name. The fleshy part of the trinity.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

gstafleu

Hmm... circular reasoning? But anyway, we have three valued logic here. Jesus makes a prediction and either (a) provides clear evidence it was fulfilled, (b) provides clear evidence it was not fulfilled, or (c) leaves us guessing. The resurrection then comes under (c).

OK, let's go with that. We then still have the question: why the lack of video tape? All other important events have video tape, but not the resurrection.

One explanation, as you indicate, is that we have to take it on faith. Why is this the only thing we have to take on faith? Does Mark indicate that taking things on faith is important in general, like Paul does? Unless Mark is into a kind of fluffy fluffy hop hop bunny "just believe and its ok" belief, the only reason I can see for the insistence of taking it on faith would be that this would help us, the reader, to resurrect as well. But wouldn't the first step then be to take on faith that Jesus is the son of God? And that is presented quite explicitly. Plus, the women don't seem to be taking it on faith, they leave in confusion. And the disciples don't even get the chance to take anything on faith! Are we, the readers, getting a better deal than the disciples? That could fit the Mark as existentialist view, I suppose.

Are there other explanations for the lack of video tape?

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

This is one reason I think an original ending was lost.

Ben.

jgibson000

Umm ... where by "the end" of Mark does the Markan Jesus order "everybody" to "tell about" his passion?

Jeffrey Gibson

JoeWallack

JW:
I got this from Richard Carrier.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

So you state as a fact that the Markan Jesus does this at the end (and you make much of it), but you don't really know where he does this or even if he really does?

Hoo boy.

JG

JoeWallack

JW:
You finally understand Jeffrey. Now just imagine that I'm you.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

And just what is it that I supposedly "finally" understand. That you don't check your sources? That you rely too heavily on someone who may not be as much of an authority as you claim he is? That you do not possess the knowledge that you often pose as having? That we can't trust much of what you say?

These things I understand. But I've understood them for quite some time.

So, in the light of your "finally", is it something else?

Jeffrey

andrewcriddle

In order to suggest that the fact of the resurrection is in doubt in Mark we would have to believe all of the following
a/ that Jesus' earlier prophecies may be mistaken
b/ that the disappearance of his body is intended by Mark to be open to some other explanation
c/ that the young man in white is an unreliable witness.
This seems unlikely.

IF Mark originally ended with 16:8 (which IMHO is quite likely) then the issue may be a reluctance of Mark to describe the mode of being of the resurrected Christ.

(On reading Mark as intended to end at 16:8 see Austin Farrer A Study in St Mark )

Andrew Criddle

Solo

The resurrection is also clearly described and duly witnessed in Mark, Gerard. Except the ones witnessing did not get it. They didn't know what to make of it.

Jiri