https://www.google.com/amp/s/timsteppin ... rd-of/amp/
I read it again as it was the first time:
Ok, we are used to read that passage as de facto denying to Pillars the glory that is own of the Lord of the Glory. Afterall, it is a pure and simple fact that "Mark" was sarcastic against the Pillars.
But as I have noted in another thread, the crucifixion of the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2:8) could be an anti-separationist dogma addressed against the Cerinthians (who denied that the Son was crucified: the mere man Jesus suffered in the his place).
Hence, according to Cerinthus, the Lord of Glory was not crucified. Paraphrasing Mark, the Cerinthus would have said:
I.e., the victim who had to be crucified was merely the man Jesus, not the spiritual Christ, the Son of God.
Hence "Mark" makes a motive of embarrassment just what was the (historical) motive of pride for the Pillars:
- In the real history, the Pillars preached that they, as members of the Body of Christ, were not crucified as Christ himself was not crucified (separationism). They were prideful for this belief.
- Hence, in the fiction, the Pillars are embarrassed by Jesus denying them the sharing of the his same glory: the cross.