aa5874

It has been brought to my attention that gMark is a perfect HJ argument killer.

If one supposes for the sake of argument that the Jesus of gMark was ONLY a man, an HJ, then as we reach Mark 16.8, the last verse of the earliest Canonized gMark, it will be realized that an HJ as described in gMark could NOT be the FOUNDATION of the early Jesus movement.

Although Jesus supposedly had carried out many miracles, walked on the sea and TRANSFIGURED on the day he was ARRESTED his disciples RAN AWAY and sometime later the very Peter who claimed Jesus was Christ RECANTED and claimed he did NOT know the man, not once but THREE times.

In gMark, the disciples were NOT telling Jews that Jesus was Christ BEFORE or AFTER his arrest. They did NOT want people to KNOW their location so they RAN away.

There was NO NEW religion under the name of Jesus Christ in gMARK up to the day Jesus died.

And, what was more terrifying is that Jesus BLASPHEMED before the Sanhedrin and was DEAD in a matter of hours AFTER a trial with Pilate.

If the disciples ADMITTED that they believe Jesus was the Son of God they too would be guilty of BLASPHEMY under Jewish Law.

The disciples cannot claim Jesus was the Messiah nor can they claim he was the Son of God. The disciples are doomed for disaster.

Then, the final blow was struck when the visitors FAILED to find the dead body of Jesus.

EVERYTHING CRASHED.

HJ of Nazareth was a total disaster up to Mark 16.8.

Judas betrayed HJ, The disciples abandoned HJ , Peter DENIED HJ and the women fled from HJ's EMPTY grave.

What is the GOOD NEWS in the (GOSPEL) of Mark about HJ of Nazareth?

Who is going to PUBLICLY LIE and claim HJ was RAISED from the dead?

Who is going to PUBLICLY LIE and claim HJ was the Messiah?

Who is going to PUBLICLY LIE and claim HJ was the Son of God?

Who is willing to die for a LIE?

It is clear that gMark up to 16.8 has KILLED the HJ argument.

HJ of Nazareth DIED in Disgrace as an ABANDONED BLASPHEMER.

HJ of Nazareth is NOT the FOUNDATION of the Jesus cult.

However, the Last Twelve VERSES, Mark 16.9-20, is the basis for the Jesus cult.

The very INSTRUCTIONS for the cult came from resurrected MYTH JESUS.

MARK 16. The MANDATE for the Jesus movement to preach the Gospel came from the resurrected MYTH JESUS in gMark.

gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer.

MCalavera

Ok, think of it this way.

Jesus was alive. Jesus was believed to be the Messiah by his close disciples. This was before the embarrassing moments pertaining to his crucifixion and death and ultimate failure.

If Jesus was believed to be the Messiah by some before his death, how then does your argument work against the historical Jesus. If anything, it supports it better than it destroys it.

Note: Theological embarrassment are indicators of unwanted historical truths.

stephan huller

MC, this is an oversimplification and only demonstrates that you have very little awareness of second century controversies. Yes there was a body of disciples but there was a split between them as to whether Jesus ever claimed to be the messiah, ever was a man. Given that situation it is very strange that despite being in the possession of the Catholics the gospels do such an unconvincing job of proving there ever was a historical Jesus who claimed to be the messiah

MCalavera

Evidence for the first part of your argument please.

No, what I stated is the simplest explanation that I know of that fits with the evidence. Call it oversimplification if you choose to, but that's not how I see it.

aa5874

Please read what I WROTE at the second paragraph.


An ordinary man would have had no theological value. There would be no need to be theologically embarrassed by the death of an ordinary man.

Who was theologically embarrassed by the death of any of the supposed apostles and disciples.

The Church claimed Paul and Peter were executed or crucified like Jesus yet we hear of no theological embarrassment.

Paul claimed he was stoned.

It must be obvious that an ordinary man has no theological value in the Jesus cult.

MCalavera

Neither Peter nor Paul were believed to be the Messiah.

Horatio Parker

I'm sure you're aware that Mark 16.9-20 is widely considered an addition.

I know there's no consensus on whether or not gMark was a Greek tragedy, but one thing seems certain: it's designed to be ambiguous, mysterious. As though the reader is supposed to decide if Jesus was the Messiah or not. What that says about gMark's author and the early church I'm not sure, but if 16.9-20 was added, it seems clear the addition was intended to remove doubt.

MCalavera

Mark 1:1 - Jesus, the Messiah

Mark 8:29 - Peter believes Jesus is the Messiah

Mark 8:30 - Jesus expresses no disapproval of this. Instead, like many cult leaders, he urges his followers to keep certain things secret from the public.

Horatio Parker

I'm not accepting 8:29-30 as unambiguous proof. Granted, it can be read that way.

So, to you, Mark does not need 16.9-20 to make his point? Mark 1:1 is supposed to settle the issue for the reader. If one were to read Mark(sans 16.9-20) and say, "this guy doesn't seem like the Messiah to me", they're just plain wrong?

No mystery?

aa5874

Evidence please!!!!

And also provide evidence of antiquity that there was an HJ of Nazareth, an ordinary man, that was believed to be the Messiah by the Jews BEFORE the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

In gMark, Jesus was NOT known as the Messiah, did NOT want anyone to call him the Messiah. Peter later DENIED he ever knew Jesus or was associated with him on the very same day he was arrested after the other disciples FLED.

The supposed HJ of gMark was REJECTED as the Son of Blessed and Messiah the very same day he was crucified.

The supposed HJ of gMark did NOT start a NEW RELIGION under the name of CHRIST up to the very day he died. HJ of gMark was ABANDONED, DENIED and REJECTED.

There was nobody in gMark promoting the ABANDONED, DENIED and REJECTED Jesus as a Messiah on the day his dead body was MISSING from the Grave.

The visitors RAN AWAY, DUMBSTRUCK right at the end of Sinaiticus Mark.

The supposed HJ of Sinaiticus gMark was a DOOMED FAILURE and was NOT the basis for the NEW RELIGION under the name of CHRIST.

Peter did NOT know HJ and the others ALL RAN AWAY.

It was the RESURRECTED MYTH Jesus of Mark 16.9-20that INITIATED the NEW RELIGION under the name of CHRIST.

MARK 16.
"Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel", gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer.