aa5874

Where in gMark does the author say he does not endorse the Jewish mob?

According to gMark, the entire events of the crucifixion, death and resurrection was ordained by the God of Moses and was willed by Him. The God of Moses knew in advance that Jesus would be regarded as a blasphemer, a breaker of the Sabbath, a sorcerer and be crucified as a criminal just as He destined.

However, based on Jewish writers and historians, there was no expectation or prophecy that the Messiah would be a sorcerer, breaker of the Sabbath, blasphemer and be crucified claiming to be the Son of the God of Moses.

So, in general, the crucifixion of Jesus, if he did live, was meaningless, not even the disciples understood the significance.

spin

When you get to the "then" one must assume that you are no longer listing the claims of the author and are giving an interpretation of the literature. You follow this with a non sequitur about "you". This is some kind of false dilemma, aa5874. If you had kept it as "the authors" rather than "you", you may have made a bit more sense to yourself, for "the authors", it would seem from the literature, did "think Jesus was a god" or thereabouts. Your insertion of "he would have survived the crucifixion" is not supported by the literary accounts which clearly say that he "breathed his last", ie he died. This is nothing about "you".

This is misrepresentation of the text. As has been pointed out to you, the writers did not endorse the position you attribute to their efforts. The high priest is not a spokesman for the gospel writers. In fact, they clearly do not support his analysis, so what follows your "[i]n effect" is an oversimplification. If Jesus according to the literature was the son of god (remember the voice from heaven proclaiming the fact?), then he was speaking the truth, despite the high priest's declaration of blasphemy and the reader would see that there was no blasphemy in what is presented. You therefore misrepresent the text.

If you think getting things so ballsed up is not missing one single point, then it probably doesn't matter that you think the crucifixion is fiction.


spin

spin

If you would only read the text closely you would be able to answer the question yourself. When Pilate in 15:10 saw that it was through envy that Jesus was delivered up, he contrasts Jesus with those who delivered him, those who manipulated the crowd. When Pilate offers a choice between Jesus and a murderer he makes his crowd choose the murderer, showing that he doesn't endorse the mob.

For someone who claims not to have "missed one single point", you're having problems evincing the claim.


spin

aa5874

Mark16.4, "Afteward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believe not them which had seen him after he had risen."

John21.12-13, " Jesus saith unto them, "Come and dine.....Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them and fish likewise."

Matthew 28.17, "When they saw him they worshipped him...."

Luke 24.39, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself, handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
1 Corinthians 15.6, "After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren..."
So, there are literal accounts of Jesus alive and talking to and eating with his disciples, after the crucifixion, according to gMark, all the Gospels and even the Epistles.

You are clearly in error. All the major authors of the NT claimed Jesus literally and in person, survived the crucifixion.

And Jesus' body was not found, when visited, according to all the authors of the Gospel, which is an indication that he did indeed literally survive.




I mis-represented nothing.
Every single word in the NT comes from the authors. The authors use the characters to propagate their stories. So, the high priest, Jesus, the disciples, the Pharisees and every other person say whatever the authors want them to say. In fiction, the authors are in control of the entire plot, from the God of Moses to the bread crumbs.

aa5874

I have not missed any point.

I think you are confusing Pilate and the author of gMark. The author makes Pilate, the mob, Jesus and all the characters do and say whatever he wants.

makerowner

You're missing the crucial distinction between "what he wants them to say to make his story work" and "what he wishes they would say". It's obvious that not every word in a particular text expresses the viewpoint of the author, particularly when those words are spoken by the villains of the story. It's also obvious that the gospel writers wrote that Jesus died, and was resurrected. Whether this actually happened or not is a completely different question, but that's what the texts say.

aa5874

According to the NT, Jesus was crucified, later he died, was buried, his body was not seen at the tomb when visited, afterwards, he was seen alive. The end result, Jesus survived the crucifixion.

QuestionMark

Thus, did Jesus die for everyone's sins, and if he did not die, what was the sacrifice?


QM?

aa5874

The authors of the Jesus' story caused their own dilemma. They all claimed he died, yet they do not produce the dead body. The author of gMark claimed Jesus would be dead for three days (MK 9.31), however within two days his body is missing (Mk 16.1-6).

I am not at all convinced, based on the author's story, that his Jesus died, so I cannot concede that the author's Jesus was ever sacrificed.

spin

After dying according to the texts. Your repeating of your oversimplification won't change your falsification.


spin