Onias

True, but within the narrative, Jesus and his 12 disciples are Jews. Outside of the narrative, the whole story might be fiction. For example, within the fictional narrative of Star Trek, Capt Kirk is a charming womanizer, but outside of the narrative, he does not even exist.

Chili

Does it concern you at all that Mark's Jesus went back to Galilee instead of Heaven?

Obviously not because the gates of heaven were not open just yet, and so who would expect him to go anywhere? really, as the crucified and raised Son of God looks perfectly all right among the suffering souls in Galilee. And why not! Those crazy women were just scared over nothing and should have shouted all over the land:

Onias

By the way, I don't think the real Messiah would have resurrected just to "get out of Dodge" by beaming up to heaven. A real Messiah would have remained on earth to fulfill the messianic prophecies by fighting the Romans and expelling them from Judaea.

Chili

Huh? Fighting Romans in Judea is against reason and is why the Jew had die, and not be raised or stolen so he would still be a Jew.

These are the words of the Jews who shouted: Crucify him, and make sure he is dead for three days, seal the tomb and keep it guarded, as this may be a slippery one.

This all sounds like they knew exactly what they were doing and just had the Romans do their dirty for them. As in 'thank you very much' but if the real one ever get's here we'll move him to Rome so that Pure Reason can be ours foreven and ever without end.

Onias

Don't forget that Jesus and his disciples were Jewish too, as were the zealots and sicarii.

On the other hand, the Arab Herodians and their Jewish collaborators wanted Jesus dead (according to the narrative) because they did not want a Roman incursion to upset their puppet government in Judaea. And the Romans never hesitated to crucify messianic zealots like the sons of Judas the Galilean. But if Jesus really was the messiah, he would have repelled the non-Jewish rulers of Judaea, either before or after his resurrection.

Chili

Well now, that is debatable as the real Jesus was not a Jew or he would be a sinner too, and the real one cannot be. . . or back to Galilee he will go.

IOW, every one is real unles they go back to Galilee, and the Jews knew exactly how it was done and that is what the caution to Pilate was all about.

Notice that the Jesus of Luke and John where Cana replaced the Herodian massacre that was followed by the friendship between Herod and Pilate did not go back to Galilee.

So, I see Rome to be Home for the Jew not as Jew nor as Catholic, but as triumfir in his own right. His kingdom was not of this world and never was about to chance or replace civil matters in that.

From my point of view both Matthew and Mark are Senecan tragedies as opposite to Divine Comedies in Luke and John, of which the details wherein the apparent contradictons so become compliments to each other.

Onias

Chili,
What makes your think Jesus was not a Jew? Are you a member of the "Christian Identity" movement?

aa5874

When the Canonised Gospels are examined it is easily seen that the author of the Later gJohn presented a Sacrificial Lamb of God from the very start which is completely unlike the author of the short gMark.

From the very first chapter the author claimed John the Baptist declared that Jesus was the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of all mankind.

John 1:29 KJV John 1:36 KJV However, in the short gMark, John the Baptist does NOT acknowledge that Jesus was the Lamb of God but claimed Jesus would BAPTISE with the Holy Ghost.

Mark 1:8 KJV The early story of Jesus is that he would BAPTISE with the Holy Ghost.

The LATE story of Jesus is that he gave himself for the Sins of mankind.

Which story does the Pauline writer know??

Galatians 1 The Pauline writer knows the LATE Jesus story.

The short gMark Jesus story predates Galatians.

The author of the short gMark did NOT know Jesus was a Sacrificial Lamb who gave himself for the Sins of mankind.

wordy

Yes seems logical from how they express themselves.
so what other conclusions does that allow us to make.

Is this an indication that different interpretations competed
with each other and that they canonizers let that stay as it are?

Did teh short gMarc write that Jesus send them out to mission?

or did them edit in that part later? Hopefully one can see such
as the evidence for an evolution of tendencies that later became norms?

Christian faith evolved and the later versions wanted to include
their version to have been revealed from the beginning?

Just guessing.

MrMacSon

Exactly. And someone in the past has proposed that is why the resurrection and Second-Coming narratives were devised - to compensate for the failing of the-messiah-who-abandoned-them.

Yes, the whole scenario reads like an evolving narrative, including the bait-n-switch 'devolution' of the narrative away from Jesus being a Jew.