Solo

You are mixing Mark and Matthew. Mark's disciples have no idea what the gospel is because they (via the inner group of Peter, John and James) beiieve in the traditional Jewish messianism, whereas Mark's Jesus proclaims the cross theology of Paul. Matthew however asserts the authority of the disciples, merging them with the spiritual body of the Twelve (whose 'naming' was later imported into Mark). Matt's disciples know the gospel (9:35); Mark's don't (9:10 e.g.) !


Best,
Jiri

Bingo the Clown-O

How did you arrive at your opinion that Jesus proclaimed the cross theology of Paul?

Bingo the Clown-O

Mark 8:31
He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

Except for Acts 7:56 and Hebrews 2:6, does the phrase “Son of Man” appear anywhere in Acts or the Epistles?

I don't think so.

Now if Jesus taught them ‘the Son of Man must do this or that’ then Jesus certainly expected them to know (at least to some extent) who the Son of Man was?

Right?

So where did that idea come from?

(besides Daniel 7:13)

Chili

There is no apology needed as for 2000 years they have been defending Mark from all directions and I am not here to destroy that.

It may be interesting to point out here that in both Matthew and Mark he felt already God-forsaken before he died, and really had no choice to go back to where he came from to tell the Jews to reform their life in the same manner as he did. Apologists think that was a good thing and is why the apology is made.

Solo

It was a long journey of discovery.

You can start here

Best,
Jiri

Solo

It seems at least possible, does it not, that the appellation 'son of man' was adopted by Mark and put into the mouth of Jesus as a way to proselytize for Paul's crucified messiah among those Nazoreans who were proclaiming Jesus as a prophet of the coming coming kingdom but not yet buying into the idea that the cross was the sign of his messianic election and destiny ?

So, if the phrase 'son of man' was traditioned by the Palestinian messianists, then Mark could have used it to lure the prospective Paulinists to give the sayings of Jesus the air of authenticity. My favorite example of the uncanny similarity of concepts between Paul and Mark is this:

1 Th 4:16-17 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Mk 13:26-27 And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

The idea of a Jerusalem above ground where God's kingdom will actualize was quite unorthodox and seems original to Paul. So I am not fazed by the fact that in the parousia scenario Paul speaks of the Lord and Mark of the Son of man. What is striking is the agreement in the scenario of the rapture - which surely was not how most Jews of the 1st century imagined the messianic restoration of Israel.

Best,
Jiri

Duvduv

But being "God-forsaken" is still there for the belief in Jesus as the promised messiah, the Son of Man (i.e. Luke 17 or John 14) who is coming back. But if Mark's Jesus was considered a failure at the outset, that's a different matter.
IF all the gospels left the reader with the feeling that it was all over, no one would have given them a second thought.

steve_bnk

As I understand it gospel translates as 'good news'.

The good news being eternal life and ressurection.

Chili

Nono,the Son of Man is us, as [the sleeper] in each of us, and does not need to come. He only needs to be reborn, as they call it there, and then Jesus must come back to lead us to the cross as the now perceived Adamic nature to be crucified.

Jesus is just a stage in life that we must endure but is not the end itself.

Duvduv

Chili, this doesn't address my question as I put it to our friend AA.