…that he (Cerinthus) was called John, and that this book is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle were written.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/timsteppin ... rd-of/amp/
I read it again as it was the first time:
Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”
36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.
37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”
38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”
39 “We can,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”
36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.
37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”
38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”
39 “We can,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”
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:
The cross belongs to that for whom it has been prepared.
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.