bacht

Maybe John the Baptist is the clue to the whole game. The linked careers of John and Jesus seem suspiciously similar to the stories about Elijah and Elisha in the Book of Kings. Does anyone believe those old stories were historically true? They certainly include geographical and temporal markers, just like Mark. Elijah's defeat of the priests of Baal and his chariot of fire would fit right into the miraculous flavour of Mark.

TedM

The stories could have influenced Mark or traditions both false and true that went into Mark or Jesus himself if he existed. Let's try to stay focused on the OP though. Thanks.

Toto

Since it is not.

Mark didn't want to make Jesus appear human, or historical. He was writing theology.

Or that Mark was writing theology / allegory.

Not to me. :huh:

So this is not the preferred option...

You are grasping at straws.

This was not a society of only children - there was no birth control, and women had as many children as they could.

This is not a point in favor of historicity.

Mark shows no evidence of being embarrassed. Mark's Jesus was not that offensive to actual Pharisees, and the motive to kill him for eating with tax collectors and sinners is highly improbable.

Or another plot device.

Mark does not equate fasting with devotion to god. Do you?

There is no indication that any of this is historical. Might it not be a contorted, ad hoc, explanation to make sense of what is obviously theology and not history? Clearing the temple is obviously not historical. It is full of symbolism and references to the Hebrew Scriptures. If Jesus had actually created a scene at the Temple, he would have been arrested or killed on the spot. Alternatively, there is no history here.

No.

If there was no early belief in the resurrection, where did Christianity come from?

This is just an ad hoc explanation based on your failure to recognize the literary structure and plot devices of Mark's literary creation.

Toto

In fiction, perhaps.

The Messiah was supposed to free Israel from Roman rule. Jesus did nothing of the sort - in fact had a lot of problems communicating with people or even inspiring his own disciples.

And didn't you announce that you were giving up on this?

aa5874

Your reply makes very little sense.

You are arguing that the author of gMark presented an human Jesus and I have countered ALL your arguments by showing that the author of gMark CERTAINLY did NOT.

The author of gMark did make sure that he portrayed a Jesus that was supernatural or DIVINE.

I have presented the the facts as found in gMark.

1. The author of gMark clearly wrote that Jesus was WITNESSED by the disciples WALKING on water.

Mr 6:49 - The author is at PAINS to show that Jesus was NOT a normal and that the disciples were AWARE of his ability to walk on water.

2. The author of gMark claimed the transfiguration of Jesus was WITNESSED by Peter, James and John.

Mark 9.2-4 Again, the author is establishing that his Jesus can change his countenance or image at will.

The author of gMark has established that his Jesus was recognised and WORSHIPED as the Son of God by the spiritual demons.

Mr 3:11 - Mr 5:7 - Even the centurion finally realized Jesus was Truly the Son of God in gMark.

Mr 15:39 - The Markan Jesus will COUNTER you and say that he was the Son of the Blessed and that he will be coming back in the clouds.

Mark 14.61-62 I have COUNTERED all your arguments using the very words found in gMark.

The author of gMark was at PAINS to show that Jesus was DIVINE or the Son of God and that he was recognised as such and did do things that confirmed his DIVINITY.

Mr 16:6 - It was not a man who was in the tomb. It was the Son of God.

The author of gMark has COUNTERED all your arguments. His Jesus was DIVINE.

TedM

He clearly did want to make Jesus appear human. He clearly did place Jesus in a historical setting. He clearly was addressing theological topics. The intent you suggest is contradicted within Mark itself and is wholly unsupported by the earliest evidence. So, why do you hold this belief? Do you hold to the belief that Mark is a clever book of fiction since he --according to you--has duped millions of people for 2000 years?


You don't think a story about a human Messiah should include something about the Messiah's life prior to the ministry when there were expectations about that Messiah that would have been addressed by doing so?

Seemingly. But not if traditions have a base in reality and the reality was largely unknown or uninteresting.

TedM

With human elements. That's the part you aren't addressing. Your answer is a cop-out in my book. If you don't believe so, don't waste your time convincing me. The only way to convince me is to address my arguments one by one.

Toto

What earliest evidence?

I think that Mark is telling a theological tale, or allegory. He has some historical background mixed in, but has not gone to any effort to make it plausible. I would therefore conclude that he is not trying to establish the existence of a historical person, as we would understand it.

It's easy to dupe people who want to be duped.


What expectations? And Mark is compatible with the idea that the Christ was a spirit who descended from heaven in his 30th year.

This makes no particular sense. If the traditions actually had a basis in reality, they would be a way of knowing that reality.

aa5874

Again, your response makes little sense. Your are arguing that the author of gMark presented a human and I have used gMark to COUNTER your argumants and show that that the author did write that

1.Jesus WALKED on water.

2. Jesus did TRANSFIGURE.

3. Jesus did RESURRECT.

4. Jesus did claim he was the Son of the Blessed and would return in the clouds.

5. The demons recognised Jesus as the Son of God.

It is ABSOLUTELY certain that my EVIDENCE found in gMark has destroyed your weak argument. The MARKAN JESUS was a God/man.

Huon

What could be a Jesus without human elements ?
Would he think ? Would he speak ? Would he be understood by the people around him ? Would he be a little blue man ?