MCalavera

Actually, before it became all spiritualized and shit, the Good News was that the Kingdom was near.

Which of course ended up being not true.

aa5874

In effect, the supposed Jesus of Nazareth was NOT ever GOOD NEWS.

To this day, the Kingdom of God has NOT yet arrived.

The Sinaiticus gMark story of the character called Jesus ENDED in REJECTION and DECEPTION.

The Sinaiticus Markan biography of Jesus was NOT the basis for the Gospel.

It was the LATER ADDITION of Mark 16.9-20, the ADDITION of the resurrected MYTH Jesus, that was the GOOD NEWS, the GOSPEL.

gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer.

These are the WORDS of the Resurrected MYTH.

Mark 16:15 - The resurrected Myth Jesus was the GOOD NEWS.

MCalavera

Jesus' first words in Mark are:

After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

You sure do presume a lot of things. :huh:

aa5874

Mark 16.15 is NOT a presumption it is actually found in Extant Codices of antiquity.

It is a PRESUMPTION that Jesus was an ordinary man in gMark.

Jesus was EXTRA-ORDINARY character in gMark since he walked on the sea and TRANSFIGURED with the resurrected prophets.

This is NOT a presumption. See Mark 6.49 and Mark 9.2.

Why do you PRESUME a character that walked on the sea and TRANSFIGURED was an ordinary man WITHOUT any external corroboration?

Bingo the Clown-O

It seems clear to me that the addition was intended to bring gMark in line with - and to add ‘credibility’ to, “The Acts of the Apostles” – which was written much later.

Bingo the Clown-O

Fwiw Mark 8:35, Mark 10:29, Mark 13:10, Mark 14:9, all make mention of ‘extant’ gospel traditions. The author of gMark either expected his readers to be familiar with these traditions – or else he was just making shit up and injecting them into his story; passing them off as some 'gospel tradition' that was already in place.

Am I making any sense?

aa5874

Now, you have mentioned "that the addition was intended to bring gMark in line with - and to add ‘credibility’ to, “The Acts of the Apostles" then this also shows that that the Sinaticus gMark which ends at Mark 16.8 was NOT derived from the Pauline writings.

The Sinaiticus gMark is a story of REJECTION, ABANDONMENT and DECEPTION and the Pauline writings are about the GOOD NEWS of the crucifixion and resurrection.

Galatians 2:20 - 1Cor 15:17 - In gMark 16.8. the MISSING body of Jesus SIGNIFIED FEAR and hopelessness and confusion.

Mark 16.6

Horatio Parker

I didn't dodge it. I said it was reasonable to interpret it that way. But it doesn't follow that there is only one possible conclusion. And that is intentional.
I'm not making it sound that way; it is. All I'm doing is pointing out that the author of gMark appears to be hedging. Why would he do that?
Why would he do that? Is he following the Typical Cult Leader Handbook?

That it is parsimonious is precisely what is wrong with it. I don't have to deny the texts, I can find refuge enough in their hedging.

Horatio Parker

Right. So why did it need punching up? Because it wasn't specific enough.

J-D

That depends on whether one supposes for the sake of argument that the author wrote nothing else; or perhaps on whether one supposes for the sake of argument that it was a case of Author Existence Failure.