jjramsey

Yes, he looks God-like, but again, even Paul shows little tells of Jesus being second-in-command, such as 1 Cor. 15:28.

Doug Shaver

I am aware of the difficulties with absence-of-evidence arguments when we're discussing ancient history. But there were people taking notes during the first century, and we do have bunches of those notes. Furthermore, most of those surviving notes had to survive a thousand years of Christian stewardship in order for us to have had them. If Jesus had made the kind of impression on his audiences that Jim Jones made on his, it seems improbable that nobody at the time would have made any record of it or that no such records would have been preserved by the Christian community.

Yes, but why? Because he was so influential during his lifetime. He was so influential during his lifetime that no American could have been unaware of his existence. He was not ignored by people who were keeping track of the important events of that time. Whether they admired him or detested him, they noticed him and they talked about him -- during his lifetime.

Nobody, and that's the problem with the analogy. King and Jones made history because they got people to do what they advocated. The first Christians that we know about, from what little remains of the first-century historical record, were doing nothing that we can reasonably suppose a historical Jesus to have advocated.

I will stipulate that "deified" is arguably the wrong word, but Paul's Christ (as I read his work) was clearly godlike in some sense, and it was a sense that Jews would not have applied to any man who had walked this earth.

jakejonesiv

Mark 9:1 is reportedly followed in six days by the Transfiguration scene, well within the alleged lifespans of Peter, James and John.

Now here is the interesting part, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until he had risen from the dead (Mark 9:9). As we know from Mark 16:8, no one told anything, so only the narrator and reader/hearer are left to tell the tale, in their generation.

Jake Jones IV

jjramsey

He does not give orders to them to not divulge what he said in Mark 9:1.

As we know from Mark 16:7, the man in white at the tomb tells the women that Jesus will go ahead of the disciples to Galilee, where he will meet them. So even if Mark is trying to indicate that the women were silent for a long time rather than temporarily dumbstruck by the shock of seeing the angel, the disciples still get to see Jesus in Galilee and become free to tell the tale of the Transfiguration, even if they never hear of the tomb.

None of this comes close to implying that when Mark depicts Jesus saying verse 9:1 to the surrounding crowd, he is really talking to the reader.

jakejonesiv

You are missing the point. On the story level, Mark 9:1 is "fulfilled" by the Transfiguration scene that immediately follows. Once you get over that hurdle, we can discuss the narrative level.

Jake Jones IV

jjramsey

That is a stretch. For one thing, to say "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power" implies that one could expect that most of Jesus' audience would die before seeing the kingdom of God come with power. Unless one expects that most of Jesus' audience would die six days later, the transfiguration doesn't make much sense as a fulfillment. Furthermore, while the transfiguration is a neat lightshow that shows how wonderful Jesus is, God is no more reigning in power after it than before it. The idea that the Transfiguration is the fulfillment of Mark 9:1 might be interesting as an apologetic to try to keep Jesus from being wrong (which is probably why you might see it in a commentary), but it doesn't fit the passage on the story level.

jakejonesiv

jj, take a deep breath and read your Bible. Three guys are "a few". They are alone on a mountain. No need for all the others to be dead. At the story level they were not there and did not see it. No need to assume they were dead in six days. That is ludicrous.

And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. Mark 9:2

You would have fit right in with the alleged disciples.

Bump the apologists. What have they got to do with this? (Answer: nothing). The author (or redactor) intended the prediction and the fulfilment as part of the same tale, linked by a six day separation.

Jake Jones

jjramsey

The problem is that if Mark was trying to say that the reason some would not taste death before seeing the kingdom of God in power is that Jesus would personally set them aside and show it to them privately before they die, then he picked a very roundabout way of saying this. Mark has Jesus address the crowd when saying verse 9:1, which implies that some of the members of the crowd may turn out to be privileged to see the kingdom of God come before their deaths. This in turn implies that the coming of the kingdom of God in power was something the crowd was capable of seeing, and hence a public event.

Seriously, though, when interpreting the text, shouldn't I be trying to put myself in the sandals of the average first-century Christian?

jakejonesiv

So in your opinion, Jesus was a dumb ass? That is a slender reed indeed to float the HJ boat.

Jake

Doug Shaver

What would have made a Jew think that any man had been elevated to that position?

Considering that Paul never knew Jesus, what could the disciples have told him that would make him think that Jesus was second in command to God?

Let's suppose for a moment that the disciples themselves believed it, and that Paul was gullible enough to take their word for it. What made the disciples think Jesus was second in command to God?