aa5874

There are claims that the Pauline writings or that some Pauline writings were the first written sources about a "heavenly Jesus" called Christ since BEFORE the Fall of the Temple and that LATER some unknown author under the assumed name of Mark put "FLESH" on the Pauline "heavenly Jesus".

However, when gMark is examined carefully it is found that it is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE. The unknown author of gMark put NO FLESH on his Jesus Christ whom he called the "Son of God" in the very first verse.

This is the very first verse of Mark1 Now when the other Gospels are read it is found that the author of gMatthew claimed Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin. See Matthew 1.18.

In gMatthew Jesus was NOT the offspring of an earthly father.

The author of gLuke, although giving more details, gave a similar mode of conception through the Holy Ghost and a Virgin. See Luke 2.35.

In gLuke, Jesus was NOT the offspring of an earthly father.

In gJohn, Jesus was the Word, the LOGOS, who was with God and equal to God and was the creator of heaven and earth. See John 1.

GJohn's Jesus was equal to God.

So, ALL three Gospels have described as non-human, a God/man or equal to God which is similar to the Pauline Jesus who was made of a woman, betrayed in the night before he supped, was crucified and was RAISED from the dead.

Now, as shown before, the author of gMark claimed Jesus was the son of God in the very first verse of his book but has no birth narrative for his Jesus.

ALL the author of gMark has to write is that his Jesus was the SON of Joseph.

Once the author of gMark wrote that Jesus was the son of Joseph WITHOUT making mention of any Holy Ghost conception or that Jesus was the Logos and the creator of heaven and earth then gMark would have put "FLESH" on his Jesus.


But, NOWHERE does the author of gMark write that his Jesus was the SON of JOSEPH. Nowhere at all.

The author of gMark seems completely UNAWARE that his Jesus has an earthly father or knows the name of his supposed earthly father.

Nowhere in gMark is Joseph mentioned even as the husband of the supposed mother of Jesus called Mary. Nowhere at all.

So far, gMark's Jesus has NO FLESH. He has no known earthly father. He was introduced ONLY as the Son of God.

But, the author of gMark had ONE opportunity to show that his Jesus HAD FLESH and did have an earthly father but he COMPLETELY rejected the idea that Jesus was the SON of a MAN.

In gMatthew, after the author claimed Jesus the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin, this passage can be found.

Mt 13:55 - The author of gMatthew asked is this not the CARPENTER'S SON. His Jesus was believed to be the son of a carpenter although the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

But, the author of gMark would have NONE of that. His Jesus was NOT the Son of a Carpenter.

His Jesus was the Son of God who just happened to appear to be the CARPENTER himself.

Mr 6:3 - GMark's Jesus had NO FLESH.

His Jesus was the Son of God and a carpenter of unknown origin.

TedM

How can he have no flesh if he is the son of Mary according to Mark? Why even have an earthly mother, who IS made out of flesh, if the goal is to present him as a heavenly figure who had no flesh? Do you think he was walking around looking like a ghost?

The reason Mark didn't mention an earthly father is because Mark wanted to present a fleshly Jesus who's father was God and mother was a human being.

aa5874

Ask Marcion of Pontus those questions. Marcion claimed that Christ only appeared to be human.

Your assertion is baseless.

You mean God has FLESH?

On what evidence of antiquity do you CLAIM to know the reason why the unknown author of gMark did not write or did not imply that Jesus was the carpenter's son and wrote NOTHING about the supposed husband of Mary or an earthly father?


Please prove that a God and a VIRGIN would NOT produce a HOLY Ghost, a MYTH.

Jesus was the OFFSPRING of the HOLY GHOST of God, a MYTH, according to the NT Canon.

dog-on

I think Mark's Christ possessed Mark's Jesus.

jgoodguy

Exactly:

Mark1:9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

Jesus became the Son of God at the Baptism according to the author of gMark.

Doug Shaver

As good as you are, aa, at interpreting scripture to make it mean whatever you need it to mean, you put most apologists to complete shame.

aa5874

But, you have only PRESUMED the origin of Mark's Jesus. A presumption does not replace the actual written evidence.

The author of gMark CLEARLY stated that Jesus was the Son of God and did NOT EVER claim Jesus had an earthly father ANYWHERE in gMark.

The very same baptism event is recorded with gMatthew's Jesus who was the OFFSPRING of the HOLY GHOST.

Mt 3:16 - It is CLEAR that the baptism of Jesus DOES not determine his ORIGIN or mode of CONCEPTION in the Gospels.

Please do NOT presume your own outcome.

You must find the written evidence in gMark to show that the author claimed his Jesus had an earthly father and there is ZERO.


GMark's Jesus had NO FLESH.

TedM

I'm asking myself 'why is he even writing about this?' The answer appears to be in your comment:

It appears that you see this as some kind of proof regarding the mythicism of Jesus question.

This is simply your interpretation. Mark could have excluded Joseph because he made up a story entirely out of the blue, or because he bestowed on a real person (with flesh) some appearance of divinity.

There is the 'mythical' Jesus who was based on a real person, and there is the 'mythical' Jesus who never was based on a real person who had flesh. Your observation about Mark and the lack of mention of Joseph doesn't solve the question as to which one Mark was writing about, although I'll give you credit for noticing it.

What I strongly disagree with is your conclusion that Mark's Jesus had no flesh simply because he was stated to be the Son of God. He also referred to himself as the Son of Man many times, and he was clearly presented as a person who ate, walked, slept, bled--so probably Mark envisioned his Jesus as having had 'flesh' covering his bones.

aa5874

And that is the very problem.

Marcion claimed Christ ONLY appeared to be human.

Please prove or demonstrate that gMark's Jesus was NOT an apparition.

Spirits recognized Jesus as the son of GOD.

Examine Mark 3 In gMark, Jesus ORDERED the SPIRITS not to reveal his TRUE nature or CONCEAL his true identity.

gMark's Jesus had NO FLESH. The author of gMark did NOT write that Jesus was the son of the carpenter.

A God was the Father of gMark's Jesus.

A God was the Father of MARCION'S Christ.

TedM

aa, what are you smoking? Your answer seems quite irrelevant to what I wrote. Mark's Jesus had flesh. Of course the claims are of a spiritual being inside that flesh. Big deal. No big surprise there..