Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 07-15-2012, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

And yet the world was not saved. The earliest christians appear to have expected the imminent kingdom of god, and the end of days. THAT was embarrassing: an end of days which never arrived.

You are right!

I imagine Mark came to regret writing his words about the end of days, if he lived long enough to see that what he wrote did not come to pass.

aa5874 · 07-16-2012, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

And yet the world was not saved. The earliest christians appear to have expected the imminent kingdom of god, and the end of days. THAT was embarrassing: an end of days which never arrived.

You are proven WRONG.

The same words are in gMark up to TODAY and 1800 years later Believers still are looking for Jesus in THEIR generation.

Nothing can embarrass BELIEVERS. They still say Jesus is coming soon as we Speak.

HJers should know.

HJers BELIEVE the NT contains history WHEN NOTHING in it can come true.

The Only thing that was true in the short gMark was the Fall of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem and that happened BEFORE the Entire Canon was composed.

sotto voce · 07-16-2012, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Wouldn't it have been embarrassing for Mark if the Son of Man had not been killed?

Only if Mark had been careless enough to write his account before Jesus was killed. But, cunning fellow that he was, he ignored the temptation to rush to the press for a quick 'killing', and waited to see what happened. And it paid off, we may presume. Not only did Jesus die, but he came back to life, too, apparently. There would have been no story without that punchline.

sotto voce · 07-16-2012, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

The earliest christians appear to have expected the imminent kingdom of god, and the end of days.

They did?

Huon · 07-16-2012, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

The earliest christians appear to have expected the imminent kingdom of god, and the end of days.

They did?

Some of them, at last.
The followers of Revelation and gJohn.
It seems that Paul was not a friend of the followers of Revelation and gJohn.

sotto voce · 07-16-2012, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

The earliest christians appear to have expected the imminent kingdom of god, and the end of days.

They did?

Some of them, at last.
The followers of Revelation and gJohn.
It seems that Paul was not a friend of the followers of Revelation and gJohn.

Do we get to see some evidence?

Duvduv · 07-16-2012, 03:54 AM

And if the writer didn't consider him the davidic messiah of the prophets, then what or who was he in GMark especially if the Elijah figure had already come according to a few words in chapter 9? !

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Wouldn't it have been embarrassing for Mark if the Son of Man had not been killed?

The short gMark Jesus MUST be killed.

The short gMark Jesus FULFILLED the words of the Prophets when he was Rejected and Killed because of the Jews.

Mark 8

Mark 9

Mark 10

Quote:

33 Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered to the chief of priests and the scribes, and they will...... put him to death...

PhilosopherJay · 07-16-2012, 06:05 AM

Hi All,

Before we judge Mark, we have to see the context for his words.

Quote:

35James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Jesus, saying, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.” 36And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?” 37They said to Him, “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory.” 38But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39They said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized. 40“But to sit on My right or on My left, this is not Mine to give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

41Hearing this, the ten began to feel indignant with James and John. 42Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. 43“But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; 44and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

The story begins with James and John, the Zebedee brothers wanting a position of power. The immediate answer to them is "to sit on My right or on My left, this is not Mine to give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” In other words, it is up to God if they get power (sitting on right and left).

The second and related discussion has to do with having power by ruling over others and having power by serving others. The writer proposes that it is a gentile trait to have power by ruling over others and a Jewish trait to have power by serving others. The expression "son of man" ordinarily means in Aramaic any human being (anybody born from a man). We should assume that it means that here. Mark is not talking specifically about a messiah figure here. That interpretation is a Christian reflection on the text based not on the immediate text, but imagining it as a foreshadowing of the crucifixion plot line.. Mark is talking about mankind in general. It is mankind in general or each man who gives his life as a ransom for many other. The meaning is that each person gives his life for the general good. That is just what a son of man - a "real Man," a "manly man," a "proper man" does.

This is not a particularly Jewish precept, but an idea that was pretty common in many communities in the ancient world. This idea that one should sacrifice one's life for the community (the many) is about as profound as saying a good son obeys his father. It is a common maxim, nothing more. It was not intended as a comment on the crucifixion storyline. It was intended on as a comment on how a man should behave and styles of leadership.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven,

A couple of quick notes. It is embarrassing for Jesus to be playing his own prophet here. This line should/must have been a line from John the Baptist or someone else originally.
The son of man, simply means "the man" here.
Since the discussion is really about the position of the apostles, the term "many" must refer to the twelve apostles. the character is saying that the man will give his life for many of the twelve apostles.

This theme of being a slave and sacrificing yourself to your group church is an interesting one. The character may not be referencing any death or crucifixion at all, but only speaking hypothetically - a good person/comrade doesn't lord it over his colleagues, but sacrifices his life for them/the group/many.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Wouldn't it have been embarrassing for Mark if the Son of Man had not been killed?

Juststeve · 07-16-2012, 07:07 AM

Marks theology is the result of the undeniable fact that his hero was killed. When Jesus ended up dead an explanation was needed. What you call Mark's theology is that explanation.

Steve

JonA · 07-16-2012, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

You're still not making any sense. What is this 'embarrassment' you're talking about?

You've got to the very heart of the matter with your insight and logic. There is no 'embarrassment' in Mark's Gospel.

What 'embarrassment' is there supposed to be?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-16-2012, 07:07 AM	#19
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Marks theology is the result of the undeniable fact that his hero was killed. When Jesus ended up dead an explanation was needed. What you call Mark's theology is that explanation. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.