All the references to demiurge in Mark

[Ben C. Smith]

The miracle is not about God and the demiurge; it is, if anything, about God and Jesus, since the Son is demonstrated to have creative powers just like his Father.

Ok, but the point of "Mark" is that if the man can see what a Simon Magus (=rival Gnostics) could see, if the "knowledge" in the his superior meaning can be gained by the man, then it is only thanks the creator.

I do not see where in the text you are getting all of this from. It seems to be coming from your own imagination.

[Giuseppe]

But you are who has introduced the value of understanding and knowledge, here:

it is, if anything, about the disciples' lack of understanding:
... about the disciples' inability to grasp it as of yet.

[Ben C. Smith]

But you are who has introduced the value of understanding and knowledge, here:

it is, if anything, about the disciples' lack of understanding:
... about the disciples' inability to grasp it as of yet.

Sure, because that is in the text: Jesus goes on and on about it.

[Giuseppe]

Sure, because that is in the text: Jesus goes on and on about it.

Ok, but also the Magus's claim is in the text. The belief that the men are trees.

Just as also the exaltation of the creator in what Jesus does is in the text.

And the Magus was (in-)famous for the his opposition to creator.

[Ben C. Smith]

Sure, because that is in the text: Jesus goes on and on about it.

Ok, but also the Magus's claim is in the text. The belief that the men are trees.

Then so is Deuteronomy 20.19; so is Jeremiah 17.8; so is Psalm 1.3. So is the parable of the trees from Judges 9.7-15. So is Aesop's fable of the tree and the reed. So is any literary fragment which has ever compared men to trees ever. Seeing men "as if they were trees" is not enough to point to Simon Magus simply because it is enough, by that same standard, to point to far too many other options.

Furthermore, what I am writing here should not have to be written at all. It is obvious. This form of exegesis can be made to prove virtually anything; therefore, it is truly useful to prove virtually nothing.

Just as also the exaltation of the creator in what Jesus does is in the text.

What Jesus does is to imitate the creator. The message is: Jesus is like God in some way. There is no message such as: Jesus rescues God from accusations aimed at the demiurge. It is simply not there. You are having to read it in, not read it out.

[Giuseppe]

I feel as that you are condeming the gospel of Mark, any gospel, to be an enigma forever.

I would like to see by you a new thread where you can list some case where "Mark" seems to be polemical against someone there out of your choice.

Is possible that the author of a religious text was never polemical against someone? Is he a saint man?

[Ben C. Smith]

I feel as that you are condeming the gospel of Mark, any gospel, to be an enigma forever.

I would like to see by you a new thread where you can list some case where "Mark" seems to be polemical against someone there out of your choice.

Is possible that the author of a religious text was never polemical against someone? Is he a saint man?

Are you joking? Mark has plenty of polemic: against the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Herodians, believers with inadequate notions concerning Jesus, and others.

[Joseph D. L.]

You have to ask, why is Mark being intentionally vague when other gnostic texts are just straightforward about it?

Could it be that you are reading into these texts your own biases and agenda?

Maybe?

[Joseph D. L.]

I feel as that you are condeming the gospel of Mark, any gospel, to be an enigma forever.

No. Only that your views and theories are utterly and irredeemably wrong and misguided, and driven by a prejudiced view of religion and Christianity.

[Giuseppe]

Are you joking? Mark has plenty of polemic: against the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Herodians, believers with inadequate notions concerning Jesus, and others.

ignoring apart the Herodians ("the kings of earth..." of Psalmic memory) and the petrines etc (of Galatians's memory), a case may be made that Luke 11:52:

Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to gnosis. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering

...was the trace of a previous conflict between the Gnostic apostles and the Jews, with the former accusing the latter of having eclipsed the true gnosis (=knowledge of the supreme god: not the god of the Jews) by instinting instead on the adoration of the demiurge (=on a positive reading of the creator in the Genesis story).

That original conflict was transposed by "Mark" (author) in a diatribe between the Gospel Jesus and the scribes and pharisees.

Hence, answering to Ben and Joseph D.L., I am neither sure nor inclined to share your certainties about Mark.