show_no_mercy

And this illustrates the assumption that you quoted me on. You are asserting that Paul's churches heard the teachings about Jesus beforehand based on your reading of the later written gospels. It's up to you to prove that Paul's churches had heard Jesus' teachings prior to Paul.

The easiest way would be something in Paul's letters like "Remember when Jesus said...". This cannot be done, therefore the assumption that Paul's churches knew Jesus' teachings prior to Paul is unfounded.

Can Christians today become Christians without reading one word in the New Testament? Of course. Why would human nature 2,000 years ago be any different?

aa5874

But, even if that is your assumption then PAUL was still presenting the teachings of Jesus from heaven. Paul it would appear was authorised by Jesus from heaven.

Paul was in contact with Jesus, his Lord and Messiah, all the time, after ascension.

Look at Galatians 1.11 In effect, the ascended Jesus modified his earthly gospel through Paul from heaven. It was Jesus who abandoned his earthly teachings through Paul.

Deus Ex

Or so Paul claims.

aa5874

And we also have claims from the assumed historical Jesus.

Petergdi

I'm doing nothing of the sort. It is obvious from reading any of the letters that the recipients are understood by the writer to have heard about Jesus and to have heard the gospel preached. This inference could be securely drawn by someone unaware of "the later written gospels."


Nope. It isn't up to me to meet carefully phrased trick demands. I said they had been told about Jesus and had heard something called the "good news" preached. Furthermore it is clear from the letter to the Romans (1:13), that the Roman congregation had received these things from someone other than Paul.


This is silly. You make a specific demand that you know can't be met and you magically deduce something far more sweeping from the inability of anyone to meet your specific demand.

Of course, because illiterate people are not excluded now and were not excluded then. Can someone become a Christian without having been told anything about Jesus or something called the "good news"?

Peter.

aa5874

Actually it is not really true that a resurrection is not featured in gMark. There is no post-resurrection story.

But, at the end of gMark's story, Jesus was claimed to have resurrected just like the other Gospels.

Matthew 28:6 - Mark 16:6 - Luke 24:6 -

Toto

Stephen Carlson has some comments on the ending of Mark in his posts from Sept 15 and Sept 11.

He suggests that Mark intended the ending to emphasize the fear and awe that the women felt in the presence of the divine, but that Mark's audience didn't get it.

Susan2

And men are not?

Is he suggesting that men are divine and women are not? This is clearly a young man, a human.

If the story ends at 5-7, we know that the women are frightened; that suggests to me that the author is emphasizing that they are frightened perhaps for those who don't get it. It is like shouting they are frightened!


16:1, would be a perfectly good ending. Why go further. He's dead. The women come and do what women do, mourn. Maybe they even placed flowers or some such on graves at that time, to mark rememberance, or for whatever reason we do such things. These are human beings of that time, I am sure they did something even as we do today.

Interestingly, how do we know that he is dead? Even Pilate is surprised, shocked might be a better word, to hear that he is dead. Is that an allusion that death should have taken longer?


Obviously, Pilate doesn't trust Joseph of Arimathea, or he wouldn't have sent the centruion to verify death.

Can he trust the centurion?

Is Joseph willing to bribe the centurion? And if so for what reason, if he is a stranger? Is he a stranger? He goes boldly before Pilate, as though to say "Enough is enough, are you people insane?"

And so he takes charge of the scene.

Was Jesus in on it?

If the women were able to follow Joseph, was anyone following the women?


The author has a lot of following going on. The naked young man, the women, peter, are all said to be following someone.

Are we supposed to be following the following?

If the story is supposed to be irony, comedy, who is the young man that the women meet at the tomb.

I suspect it would be funny in an ironic sense if it were Peter. We already know that Peter is a follower. Iow's, spooky stuff, told around a camp fire.

It may also explain why the women were first amazed and affightened to see the young man, but then definitively amazed and frightened, as if to the bones. Go tell his disicples and Peter.

Maybe it's Paul? That would be spooky.

Is the author poking fun at the women? Are they stupid? Do they feel foolish and shamed?

Was that the purpose of this little party?

What happened to Salome in Matthew when this story is retold?






What is the author trying to convey to the reader?