Originally Posted by dog-on

Does the text of Mark infer that John recognizes Jesus, in your opinion?

It seems to me that Mark casts an Elijah figure and then, comically, makes the Elijah figure completely miss the fulfillment of his own prophesying. Almost like a Python sketch. So if there is any embarrassment here, it has got to be John's, I suppose.

Originally Posted by Solo

But, this verse may also signify (and I believe that it does) that by Paul's witness Jesus was not aware of sinning but objectively (legally) there were grounds for his execution:

Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree"-

This I read as meaning that Paul considered Jesus condemned under the law.

Rom 8:3-4 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law (ἵνα τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου) might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

IOW, Paul believed that Jesus was condemned in law and condemned justly, (i.e. there was substance to the charge(s) that led to his execution) in order (for God) to demonstrate that not law but faith (of Jesus Christ - read both ways) was the key to salvation.

This fits well with another saying by Paul - 1 Cr 2:8 "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." IOW, the ecstatic Jesus was out of his mind for God. He was led by the Spirit of God, and emptied of himself, doing what the spirit told him. Only those elected by God (Rom 8:33), i.e. having the wisdom to interpret their experience of Christ, could see this.

FWIW, my take on Paul's "silence" on the words and deeds of Jesus, is that his revelation of Christ (in becoming an ecstatic himself), led him to realize that God sacrificed Jesus' by making him a mad prophet (Hsa 9:7-11) for the kingdom of God. Jesus might have transgressed the law but only because God willed it.

Best,
Jiri

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It is an interesting point and I'm not sure of the answer.

It probably depends on whether Mark implies that John shared with Jesus the vision of the heavens opening the dove descending and the heavenly voice.

John's Gospel chapter 1 has John the Baptist claiming to have seen the vision, but Mark doesn't make it clear whether John was aware of the spirit descending on Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, I will give you one such argument. Paul's epistle to the Galatians describes Paul's encounter with Peter and James in the Council of Jerusalem.

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

"Again, using your "solid arguments" and "multiple traditions," what can you say about Jesus? What "facts" do you base your judgment that gMark's Jesus of Nazareth could not have been based on Jesus ben Ananias?"

OK, I will give you one such argument. Paul's epistle to the Galatians describes Paul's encounter with Peter and James in the Council of Jerusalem. In this letter, Paul writes of the crucifixion of Jesus (as in every letter), and he writes of a bitter theological dispute with Peter. No Christian would have reason to forge this letter, because they were interested in portraying Paul and Peter to be unified behind the same doctrines, as in the book of Acts. For this reason, scholars are unified on the point that Paul genuinely wrote the epistle to the Galatians. This letter necessarily predates the fall of Jerusalem, which means the Christian character of Jesus existed well before the popularity of Jesus ben Ananias.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, you have identified the problem with your own HJ. Your HJ have a STRIKING RESEMBLANCE to Jesus of Nazareth the Son of a Ghost.

The Son of a Ghost is the ONLY character known to mankind to have been BELIEVED to have lived in Nazareth, baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

It is well documented in Existing Codices and Multiple attested in Apologetic sources that it was BELIEVED Jesus of Nazareth was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Your historical Jesus of Nazareth was DERIVED from the very same sources as Son of the Ghost.

Your Jesus has a STRIKING resemblance to MYTH Jesus.

You must fill in the Gaps.

Originally Posted by Grog

My position is that the Christ of Paul is not the same as the apocalyptic preacher. I think the Christ of Paul is the same Christ of Peter and James. The names of Peter and James were just retrofitted into the Gospels later and the Gospel story, the biography (at least the passion) is derived from Jesus ben Ananias.

I do agree with you that Galatians would appear to be written before the fall of Jerusalem and not entirely a later forgery...which is why I haven't accepted aa's argument for a late, forged Paul.

Originally Posted by Grog

I can't sort out where Abe's doomsday preacher ends and the Divine Christ begins.

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

That complicates the theory, but that is not the only problem. Paul wrote a helluva lot about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.


Such things are only vaguely similar to what happened to Jesus ben Ananias, but, if the myths of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus can be attributed to Paul's Christ, then you go from very little connection to hardly any connection, and there is very little reason to weave a convoluted historical model of Jesus Christ around Jesus ben Ananias......