Horatio Parker

Analogy is a hard sell around here.

Bingo the Clown-O

But that can’t be correct because as aa5874 has already pointed out, the Pauline letter tradition came much later.

The more I think about it the more I like my hypothesis better (at least right now – but maybe I will change my mind after lunch). It’s all based on Hosea 6:1-2. Mark’s “Kingdom of God” was an earthly kingdom. The followers were supposed to be resurrected into the new Kingdom on earth on the third day. That was the good news. That was the GOSPEL.
The author of Matthew 28 thought that Mark 16 was talking about a physical body. You can tell because he changed the part about the rock already being moved.

According to Mark the rock was already moved when the women got there (it was necessary to move the rock because Mark's Jesus had a physical body).

But in Matthew’s version he changed it so that the rock was not moved until the angel moved it (it was not necessary to move it because because Matthew's Jesus did not have physical body).

aa5874

Why can't people here deal with the ACTUAL WRITTEN EVIDENCE found in gMark.

Jesus in gMark did NOT want anyone to know he was the Messiah.

Jesus did NOT even tell his OWN disciples that he was the Messiah. Incredibly It was PETER in gMark who claimed Jesus was the Messiah and IMMEDIATELY Jesus FORBADE the disciples from making such a claim to anyone.

And further, there was ANOTHER person who called himself CHRIST when Jesus was supposedly alive.

Jesus was NOT PUBLICLY known as the Messiah ONLY in SECRET in gMark.

There was ANOTHER person that PUBLICLY called himself the Messiah.

Mark 9:38 -
Let us NOT waste any more time. I have Good News and Bad News.

HJ would be BAD NEWS----Sinaiticus gMark

MJ is the Gospel, the Good News---Mark 16.9-20.

gMark is the PERFECT HJ argument killer.

Bingo the Clown-O

Maybe because of deep seated emotional needs???

Solo

This was actually thrown in pro bono.

Jiri

Horatio Parker

And he published this information in a story. Hence, a secret only within the confines of the story.

Again, the best explanation IMO is to provoke thought and discussion.

So why did gMark include those verses? To show that others may carry out good works in his name or to leave a superfantastic clue about the *real* messiah?

aa5874

Oh, oh!!! Another ridiculous PRESUMPTION by MCalavera. Stop inventing your own history.

In the NT Jesus was NOT an apocalyptic preacher. Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator and a DEVEIVER.

And in gMark 13, Jesus had a PRIVATE, yes, a PRIVATE duscussion with FOUR disciples about an apocalypse.

Jesus in gMark did NOT want the Jews to be SAVED so he did NOT PREACH about any apocalypse.

Jesus WANTED the Jews to be SUDDENLY DESTROYED.

In the Synoptics Jesus DECEIVED the Jews by preaching the GOOD NEWS of the kingdom of God and DELIBERATELY did NOT tell the Jews that Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed.

Mark 4Mark 13 Jesus was NOT an apocalyptic preacher in the NT, he was a DECEIVER, a Ghost Child that did NOT want the Jews to be SAVED but to be SUDDENLY destroyed.

In the NT, Jesus, the DECEIVER, had NO GOOD NEWS for the Jews. UP to NOW.

Solo

In the gospel-writing imagination the entry-barring rock had no restraining effect on Jesus. Matthew has the tomb sealed when the women arrive to make the symbolism of divine intervention in the removal of the body explicit.

Interesting. So in effect you are saying that you can see into Mark's design well enough to proffer assurances his resurrected Jesus could not pass through solid matter. I am ok with that and would class it with other amusing but harmless notions that I often see on this board.

Best,
Jiri

MCalavera

You're still saying suggest. What will convince you that Jesus, the son of David, was the Messiah according to Mark?

Jesus stated he's the Messiah in Mark. I'm not even talking about the first or last chapter. Check again the verses I mentioned.

MCalavera

So Jesus wanted to destroy the Jews?

That's new.