Does GMark Show That Peter Promoted A Resurrected Jesus?

[JoeWallack]

And Joseph began to teach them, that the historical Peter likely never emphasized that Jesus was resurrected after three days. And he spake the saying openly.

JW:
The Issue:
GMark does not show (no need for "clearly" since this is a fact) that Peter promoted a resurrected Jesus. The question for this Thread is what is the evidence, if any, based solely on GMark, that Peter did promote a resurrected Jesus after the GMark narrative?

Although the trend among Skeptics is that Peter did not promote a resurrected Jesus I fear that an unnaturally high percentage of Skeptics uncritically accept Christian Assertian that Peter did promote a resurrected Jesus because Skeptics have not adequately considered what the original Gospel narrative GMark showed on the subject.

So, again, what is the evidence, only from GMark, that Peter promoted a resurrected Jesus?

Assumptions of this Thread:
1. The Supernatural is impossible.
2. GMark originally ended at 16:8.
3. 14:28 is original.
4. Jesus/Peter were historical


Joseph

The New Porphyry

[Bernard Muller]

Although the trend among Skeptics is that Peter did not promote a resurrected Jesus

That's encouraging.

Assumptions of this Thread:
1. The Supernatural is impossible.
2. GMark originally ended at 16:8.
3. 14:28 is original.
4. Jesus/Peter were historical

I am is disagreement with 3. And also I do not think "Mark" wrote the empty tomb passage: http://historical-jesus.info/79.html

About Peter not believing in the resurrection of Jesus, from the evidence in gMark:
http://historical-jesus.info/8.html

For the big picture, that is the pillars not becoming Christians:
http://historical-jesus.info/108.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Charles Wilson]

So, again, what is the evidence, only from GMark, that Peter promoted a resurrected Jesus?

Assumptions of this Thread:
1. The Supernatural is impossible.
2. GMark originally ended at 16:8.
3. 14:28 is original.
4. Jesus/Peter were historical

***

1. If the Supernatural is impossible, then it should be, in Theory, possible to trace an Historical Thread that describes the NT and the movements of the characters in Judea and Galilee. Oh...and Rome.

2. If there was a different ending it would have been to end the ending Chiasm. There are still fist fights aplenty with even this solution.

3. Mark 14: 27 - 28 (RSV):

[27] And Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away; for it is written, `I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.'
[28] But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."

There's that Word Play again: "Lamb" => "16th Mishmarot Group" => " אמּר ". This is a Story of the Priesthood. This takes care of my comments 1 - 3. QED

4. "Jesus" was not real. He was a Roman Construct, inverting the Story of the Mishmarot Priesthood at the Death of Herod and the "I-will-Return" in 9 CE of the Priest who was saved by Peter. The Priest knows he will die and he does.

Mark 14: 28 IS REAL. Peter was a real person who lived in Jabnit, a Settlement in Upper Galilee, near Meiron. Peter is a child in 4 BCE and a young Priest in 9 CE. (If NOT real, the Story would be a Literary Device written by someone such as Zakkai, a possible survivor of the Destruction of the Temple and a new Member of the new Class of Teachers called "Rabbi".) Thus, your #4 about Peter is TRUE. QED.

CW

[Giuseppe]

The question was not even raised by Mark, because:

1) there is not difference between the risen Jesus and the living Jesus, for two reasons:

A) the circular structure of the gospel: the risen Jesus goes to Galilee and the entire story begins again from the start, with a living Jesus coming from Nazaret. Peter follows immediately Jesus because he sees ALREADY him as the risen Christ who commanded the women to advice him to precede the Christ in Galilee. Peter is a fisher the first time he sees Jesus because he is already preaching the Christ to Gentiles.

B) There was never a historical Jesus. The error of Peter for Mark is to have misunderstood the same risen Christ.