Maklelan

Why, just because you say so, or because it undermines your thesis? Either way, it doesn't really overcome the rather explicit identification of Jesus as the Christ.

Again you fail to separate the narrative from reality. The question is not who in our reality is to be identified as the Messiah, the question is who Mark thought was the Messiah.

Utter nonsense. You simply do not make any sense.

aa5874

IT is NOT me. It is gMark 1.1. You seem to think that your IMAGINATION trumps the written evidence in gMark.

The author of gMark from the very START INTRODUCED his Jesus as Jesus CHRIST in the very first verse so it is quite illogical to state that Mark 14.62 confirms that Jesus is the Messiah.

Mark 1:1 - gMark is a MYTH Fable of a character called Jesus Christ that WALKED on sea water and Transfigured with the resurrected DEAD, Moses and Elijah. See Mark 1.1. 6.48-49 and 9.2-5.

stephan huller

My exegesis is based on the Marcionite interpretation of the passage. The Marcionite gospel is either identified as a lengthened Mark (Philosophumena) or a shorted Luke (Irenaeus). On the Marcionite equivalent of Mark 8:29, 30 or Luke 9:18, 19 Tertullian notes:

stephan huller

I don't know if you are aware of this but the Marcionite understanding is that Jesus was not the messiah was not the Son and the vague answers/gospel secret was to preserve success on his mission

stephan huller

Interestingly Joel Marcus cites Origen's Commentary on John book 19 for the longer ending but many scholars have argued that later parts of the Commentary are derived from Cyril of Alexandria not Origen. There are no early Patristic witnesses to this reading as far as I can see (unless book 19 can be authenticated as actually belonging to Origen).

stephan huller

Marcus's analysis of the passage is quite interesting although of course he ignores the definitive testimony of the Marcionite when it comes to making clear that the earliest interpretation of this passage is the exact opposite of his premise - i.e. that Jesus was not the messiah. For those interested here is what Maklelan is directing us to:

http://books.google.com/books?id=WPl...hedrin&f=false

stephan huller

And in case anyone has any doubts, the Marcionite text had 'you say that' in the sense that 'you say it but not me' as Tertullian notes in Against Marcion:

DCHindley

I like that cartoon! But I can't tell you how many times that a post that sounds stoopid or misinformed on its face has prompted me to look into the matter myself, and learn something I did not already know.

As commentator Erin Burnett (perhaps hands down the most attractive news pundit on TV in the USA) says in the commercials advertising her CNN show, "I always run the numbers myself." Good advice.

DCH

stephan huller

Mark also uses Old Testament texts in chapter 1 to refer to Jesus that originally referenced an anointed one

This is the argument Irenaeus first makes in Book Three clearly directed against a heretical group like the Marcionites (if not the Marcionites) who apparent had neither the beginning nor the end of Mark (the so-called long ending).

Interesting the Samaritan Targum substitutes apostle/spokesman for messenger/angel. Don't know what relevance that has

Still playing with action figures. Sorry for the choppy replies

stephan huller

I had five minutes while my son was playing video games to notice something significant. Philo repeatedly references God as chrestos. Moses too. Christos is never used anywhere. More later