Steven Carr

Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Wouldn't it have been embarrassing for Mark if the Son of Man had not been killed?

aa5874

The short gMark Jesus MUST be killed.

The short gMark Jesus FULFILLED the words of the Prophets when he was Rejected and Killed because of the Jews.

Mark 8 Mark 9Mark 10

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven,

A couple of quick notes. It is embarrassing for Jesus to be playing his own prophet here. This line should/must have been a line from John the Baptist or someone else originally.
The son of man, simply means "the man" here.
Since the discussion is really about the position of the apostles, the term "many" must refer to the twelve apostles. the character is saying that the man will give his life for many of the twelve apostles.

This theme of being a slave and sacrificing yourself to your group church is an interesting one. The character may not be referencing any death or crucifixion at all, but only speaking hypothetically - a good person/comrade doesn't lord it over his colleagues, but sacrifices his life for them/the group/many.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Horatio Parker

If God gives divine power to humans, then His own is diminished. Ergo, Jesus "gives" his life for us.

But yes, it would've been embarrassing to Mark, not having control over his own story.

aa5874

Someone writes a story AFTER the Fall of the Temple and gives the impression that the Temple Fell and Jerusalem desolated because the Jews Rejected Jesus as the Son of God and Messianic ruler and handed him over to be killed by the Romans.

The author of short gMark had NOTHING to be embarrassed about. In fact, the author may have been delighted that people of antiquity BELIEVED his invention.

The KILLING of Jesus is the MAIN theme of the short gMark story. The author wanted to BLAME the victims for their calamities--Not the Romans.

JonA

Huh?

Was there an argument you wished to make?

Steven Carr

I was just pointing out how important for Mark's theology it was to have a dead hero saving the world.

And how embarrassing it would have been if his hero had not saved the world by being killed. A bit like how embarrassing it is to collect your 'Suicide Bomber of the Year' award in person. You feel such a fraud as you walk up to get your statue.

JonA

You're still not making any sense. What is this 'embarrassment' you're talking about?

LegionOnomaMoi

Which presupposes that Mark's christology/theology was constructed around such an event, rather than that it attempted to account for a dead individual's failure. In other words, if (prior to Mark) Jesus existed only as a Christ myth of some sort, why would the author of Mark require a death at all? Or a savior? What can we presume about a mythical Christ such that the figure depicted in Mark becomes somehow necessary or essential?

And yet the world was not saved. The earliest christians appear to have expected the imminent kingdom of god, and the end of days. THAT was embarrassing: an end of days which never arrived.

Steven Carr

You've got to the very heart of the matter with your insight and logic. There is no 'embarrassment' in Mark's Gospel.