Is Jesus in Mark merely human?

[Giuseppe]

I'm always more intriguing on the issue, since I'm beginning to suspect that if the Jesus of the first Gospel was represented as merely human (searching deliberately for the paradox with the previous cosmic Christ of Paul), then this greatly supports mythicism more than you might think (because Mark would need to humanise Jesus to the (proportional) extent that he wanted to relativize, as a genuine theodicy in his eyes, the destruction of the temple in 70 CE).

As the argument goes:

1) The temple was destroyed because it was only a human temple
2) but it could be a human temple only insofar there is already a genuine celestial Temple
3) but the point 2 is made sure only by introducing ex nihilo a merely human Jesus (the true Temple) on the stage.

(The same logic works if you replace 'Temple' with 'Israel' or 'collective Son of God').

So I ask to expert forumists which are the more recent scholar views about Mark you recommend regarding the issue of the high or low Christology in Mark (with particular preference to the scholars who recognize the pauline influence on Mark).

For example, I quote this scholar

To put it plainly, it is impossible for Jesus to be a preexisting figure if he is younger than and originating from Mary and David. Mark makes no attempt to suggest, imply, or hint that Jesus is anyone other than the human Messiah, a lineal descendant of King David carried forth down to Mary, Jesus’ mother.

https://dustinmartyr.wordpress.com/2016 ... hael-bird/

Do you agree with the quote?

Really thank you.

[Clive]

21 They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. 22 The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. 23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, 24 “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”

25 “Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!” 26 The impure spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.

Doesn't sound like an ordinary human

[Giuseppe]

Yes, but please see the difference with the Jesus-Robocop of gospel of John.
See for example Mark 1:12

At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness

Here Jesus sees a mere stupid man possessed by a Spirit more strong than him.

[Ulan]

Here Jesus sees a mere stupid man possessed by a Spirit more strong than him.

I agree for the most part. That's also the reason why it doesn't matter what happened in the life of Jesus before he was baptized. He was just the vessel.

[Clive]

But there are different sorts of vessels wine skins, amphora, dinghys ships, Saturn V .....

Is the son equal to the father?

[Giuseppe]

Here Jesus sees a mere stupid man possessed by a Spirit more strong than him.

I agree for the most part. That's also the reason why it doesn't matter what happened in the life of Jesus before he was baptized. He was just the vessel.

If Jesus was been NOT represented as a humble vessel in the first gospel, then probably he would never have been historicized in later gospels, or at least Jesus would have been really difficult a subject to historicize.

That is precisely my point in this thread.

This may be a reason of why the priority of Mark would be (paradoxically) more expected under a mythicist scenario rather than the same Mcn priority (where Jesus is not a mere stupid man-vessel).

Think about that: if the first gospel was John or even Mcn, would be the ancient people so idiot as to believe in the historicity of their angel-Jesus or their robocop-Jesus?

Maybe just the introduction of an apparent useless hypothesis (namely: the human Jesus mere vessel of Mark) would help most of all to put Jesus on the road to being (more easily) historicized/euhemerized.

Then people would have no choice but to believe in the historicity of Jesus: after all, what interest would have had apparently Mark to invent a mere human vessel of the spirit of Christ?

To discover the real reason for Mark to introduce a mere human vessel would be equivalent to discover why ultimately Mark invented Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

A mere human vessel has the only mere function of delimiting a boundary, a line, a border.

Which is precisely that boundary?

The best 'Jewish' answer in absolute I get is this (I use 'Jewish' in opposition to Gnostic and Marcionite meaning, usually):

Holiness of place is dependent on the sanctifying presence of [the human embodiment of the divine Glory], perfectly embodied in the (high) priesthood. If Jesus is the true eschatological high priest, then it stands to reason that whereever he may be there rests the sacred space of the true temple. And if David’s men can eat the bread of the presence at a sanctuary at Nob (1 Sam. 21.1), why cannot Jesus set up a new sanctuary for his disciples in the Galilean countryside?

(p. 76, my bold)

Jesus justifies his disciples’ breach of the Sabbath because he claims to be a sacral king and high priestly Son of Man. Where he is, in that place there is the transcendent liturgical space and time of the true temple in which his disciples can legitimately act as priests for whom the Sabbath prohibition against work does not apply. (pp. 76-77)

source: http://vridar.org/2014/11/10/how-the-go ... gh-priest/

This may be the reason of why Jesus seems again a mere stupid man when he dies and Spirit leaves him.

The temple, too, was emptied of Spirit of God when it was destroyed by Romans.

Is Jesus in Mark a ''human Temple'' walking?