gstafleu

Here is an added thought. Given that Mark presents Jesus as some "godly" person, isn't it rather obvious that he would "succeed" in all these activities? After all, he had gotten those powers from God, so of course he could do these things. It seems to me that the only question open at that point is whether or not the people would go for it. Which they didn't do.

Gerard

aa5874

All you are doing is imposing on the author of gMark what you personally expected Jesus to have been. You seem to propagate the "old" Messiah.

In gMark's Jesus, what you perceive to be a failure is what makes him a success, he was killed, yet that is exactly what he predicted to show that he could CONQUER death. This is the "new" Messiah of gMark.

gstafleu

Since I don't think the guy existed, that would be rather difficult to accomplish.

Gerard

Casper

Aren't there some anachronisms or whatever they might be called which indicate that aMark was not a Jew, or if so ethnically, possibly removed from Jewish culture to the point of not portraying things the way a Jew would?

If so then I think it drives your idea further into the Satire camp. Thoughts?

aa5874

We are not dealing with existence of Jesus, but specifically on the Jesus presented by the author of gMark, who has been referred to as the "Messiah" for the purpose of this discussion.

Please refer to your post #82.

Your position is that Mark's Jesus was a failure but you have NOT been able to show such a thing, but you just continue to make the claim.

My position is that Mark's Jesus was not a failure, based on gMark, Jesus predicted the outcome of his life on earth at the success rate of 100% or a failure rate of zero, whichever is greater.

Jesus ROSE.

bacht

Wouldn't 'success' for a messianic Jew be something like the arrival of the kingdom of Heaven, or the destruction of Israel's enemies?

Ben C Smith

Yes, I believe so.

And I think the first Jewish Christians were still expecting the arrival of the kingdom of heaven, as well as the destruction of all enemies (of Christians as well as enemies of Israel). The twist was that they also believed the messiah had already arrived once, in humility and not in glory.

Ben.

bacht

Thanks. Is Mark presenting a double advent? Should we read him that literally?

ynquirer

The OT is a story of Yahweh’s recurrent disappointments. He created Man, and Man always fails to be faithful to the covenant, however many opportunities God gives him.

Mark is a new story, but the same pessimistic mood. God becomes Christ (God and Man altogether) and tries to persuade Man from inside, to no avail again. Christ gives proof after proof of his power and wisdom, but Man is incorrigible.

Therefore, the gospel of Mark is a necessary link between the OT – Yahweh’s old story plus pessimistic mood – and the gospel of Paul and the rest of the NT – Christ’s new story plus optimistic mood. The gospel of Paul was intelligible for the Gentiles but not for the Jews. The gospel of Mark rendered the gospel of Paul intelligible also for the Jews.

Ben C Smith

Yes, I believe so. An advent is a coming (Latin adventus). Mark represents Jesus as having come already (1.7, for example, or 2.17), and he represents Jesus as being destined to come again (14.62, for example).

Ben.