Galatians 3:1 "portrayed as crucified"

[davidmartin]

Hakeem agree well put. But the gospel of Mark also disagrees with itself:

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
However..... this is right at the end in the 'narrators voice' long ending, meaning a Pauline hand has been at work here and likely in other places

[robert j]

In the letters, Paul gave significant emphasis on faith, but he certainly did not ignore the requirement for works, that is, for appropriate behavior.

You seem not to understand that in the Pauline Epistles that one cannot be saved by following the Law but must believe that the Pauline Christ was raised from the dead.

Apparently it’s you that didn’t understand what I wrote, or chose to mischaracterize what I wrote.

Of course, according to the letters, “one must believe that the Pauline Christ was raised from the dead”.

[hakeem]

Hakeem agree well put. But the gospel of Mark also disagrees with itself:

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
However..... this is right at the end in the 'narrators voice' long ending, meaning a Pauline hand has been at work here and likely in other places

Maybe Mark is really proto-Matthew

The long-ending GMark is a very very late writing and appears to have been manipulated to be compatible with other late writings like GMatthew, Gluke, GJohn, Acts of the Apostles and all Epistles.

The short GMark [ending at chapter 16:8] is the earliest NT Jesus story and predates all other NT Jesus stories including those in any NT Epistle.

In the short GMark the supposed Jesus preached his Gospel while he was alive and the Temple was still standing.

Mark 1

14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel

.

The only way for Jews to repent of their sins was to offer sacrifices at the Temple in the time of Pilate.

The Markan Jesus said nothing about starting a new religion or abolishing the Laws regarding Sacrifice in the Jewish religion.

[rgprice]

@hakeem

GMark has nothing whatsoever to do with the so-called Pauline Epistles.

The response--One must first follow the Law in order to be get eternal salvation

These things are not mutually exclusive. It's one thing to say that the writer of Mark did not fully adhere to Paul's teachings, it's another to say that he had no knowledge of them and nothing at all to do with them.

There is clear evidence that the writer of Mark knew the Pauline epistles. That doesn't require that he agreed with every aspect of them. The fact that mark doesn't bring up circumcision is also a big issue. Clearly circumcision was a major issue for Paul. Its unmentioned in Mark. That doesn't mean Mark didn't know Paul, just that he had some reason not to follow Paul down that path.

[davidmartin]

What if the Mark of Acts is the Mark of the gospel?
There Paul and Mark fall out over beliefs (unspoken subtext) and split. Mark to preach his gospel (of Mark) and Paul his one?
It could be Mark, like Paul, did not require circumcision
I'm riffing here, not expecting anyone to take this seriously

[davidmartin]

The Markan Jesus said nothing about starting a new religion or abolishing the Laws regarding Sacrifice in the Jewish religion.

Even if that were so, the gospel of Mark itself is a text of a 'new religion' (especially if it's audience were gentiles)
but what does 'new religion' mean? fine line between a new movement and a new religion i guess. You may be onto something that Jesus never wanted to cross that line, but that doesn't mean he wasn't doing something different

[perseusomega9]

new religion= societal changes resulting from Roman expansion and displacement within communities and resulting in new ways of community structure with respect to the predominant religious cult and imperial authority. Local variation may apply.

[hakeem]

@hakeem

GMark has nothing whatsoever to do with the so-called Pauline Epistles.

The response--One must first follow the Law in order to be get eternal salvation

These things are not mutually exclusive. It's one thing to say that the writer of Mark did not fully adhere to Paul's teachings, it's another to say that he had no knowledge of them and nothing at all to do with them.

There is clear evidence that the writer of Mark knew the Pauline epistles. That doesn't require that he agreed with every aspect of them. The fact that mark doesn't bring up circumcision is also a big issue. Clearly circumcision was a major issue for Paul. Its unmentioned in Mark. That doesn't mean Mark didn't know Paul, just that he had some reason not to follow Paul down that path.

I do not see any evidence at all that the author of the short GMark knew any NT Epistle. Because the author of Mark did not mention the circumcision does not mean the writer knew of Paul and the Epistles.

GMark has nothing to do with salvation of mankind by the crucifixion and/or resurrection.

Mark 4:11-12

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

GMark's Jesus did not come to save people from their sins or abolish Jewish Laws of Sacrifice

The Long GMark, GMatthew, GLuke, GJohn and all the NT Epistles are later manipulation of the short GMark's Jesus story.

[hakeem]

The Markan Jesus said nothing about starting a new religion or abolishing the Laws regarding Sacrifice in the Jewish religion.

Even if that were so, the gospel of Mark itself is a text of a 'new religion' (especially if it's audience were gentiles)
but what does 'new religion' mean? fine line between a new movement and a new religion i guess. You may be onto something that Jesus never wanted to cross that line, but that doesn't mean he wasn't doing something different

Gluke appears to be a later corrupted version of the Markan and Matthean Jesus stories.

It is clearly seen that the other Gospels and Pauline Epistles were written after the short GMark as soon as it was claimed that the supposed resurrected Jesus appeared to people and commissioned Peter to preach the Gospel--no such thing is found the short GMark.

[davidmartin]

It's all theories on how it went down for sure..
but if the argument is that Mark in appearance has Jesus hardly preaching much different from the other religious leaders of his time... (yet he's a miracle worker with fantastic parables who escapes death) that paradox could solved by it being the desire of Mark's author simply to paint Jesus in this light - ie that's his interpretation of Jesus... and his is not the only one even in his time

How is his not the only one in his time?
Because we can see Mark used sources himself most clearly in the parable sayings but likely other documents also
Therefore those who wrote these sources can only be guessed what their 'gospel' (or collection of texts) looked like. It may have differed from how Jesus is portrayed in Mark

In this scheme a pre-existing Jesus 'movement' exists (whether he existed or not), which the later writings used as a source and portrayed Jesus in their own ways

Thus Paul's own gospel was a gospel of omission. He simply chose to emphasise the heavenly/present Christ and not speak of the earthly figure or relate his deeds or words - which did exist in his time (thus Paul - 'we have known Christ according to the flesh but we don't know him that way any longer')

If there is a relationship between Paul and Mark as RG suggested then they represent different preaching movements and by extension churches that later on are combined. It wasn't a purely literary evolution but played out also in competing sects/branches and leadership