Stephen said
It’s not just the need Mark’s audience had for Jewish customs to be explained to them at a very basic level. That was merely one example. There’s also the portrayal of Jesus being bested by the Syrophoenician woman in public debate and thereafter extending his mission to her and other gentiles in gentile territories. It’s the portrayal of a Roman centurion as the first to accept Jesus as a son of God. It’s the importance of the gospel needing to be preached to all the nations.

Also look at Mark’s primary theme, a radical redefinition of the concept of the Messiah.  The author would have had a much better chance of doing this with gentiles who had not internalized the traditional triumphalist concept than he would have with an audience of Jews who would (and did) balk at the idea of a crucified Messiah.  

  

Gentiles did not need a Jewish Messiah for independence of Judea and Galilee from Rome.

Jesus did not even have the support of Judea and Galilee for independence from the Roman Empire.

King Monobazus and Queen Helena were not looking for the independence of Judea from Rome.

What Mark is talking about is so disconnected from history anyway–it is a radical rewriting of history.

Robert said
Correct. Paul’s influence on the surviving Christian churches, while localized and minimal at first, grew with time. 

  

You missed the point.

The Quest for the Historical Paul

James Tabor considers Biblical and external accounts of the apostle

James Tabor
It might come as a surprise, but outside our New Testament records we have very little additional historical information about Paul other than the valuable tradition that Jerome preserves for us that he was born in the Galilee. The early Christian writers of the second century (usually referred to as the “Apostolic Fathers”) mention his name less than a dozen times, holding him up as an example of heroic faith, but nothing of historical interest is related by any of them.

= = =

Bart knows this and has not said anything to the contrary about evidence external to the New Testament for the existence of Paul. Without a confirmation for the existence of Paul outside of the New Testament, you have no foundation.

Paul made up a Jesus he never met and he bragged about not spending time with those who supposed to have been the original disciples.

Jewish Revolt

Jesus of Galilee was the Jesus of Galilee who lost the Battle of Galilee.

John, disciple of Jesus probably got his name from the John who also was a rebel against Rome.

Simon, disciple of Jesus probably got his name from Simon who also was a rebel against Rome.

Simon asked Jesus what will happen to John? Will he not die as I am led where I do not want to go? Simon was led in the triumphal parade of the Romans winning the First Jewish Roman War. John was not put to death as Simon was. Titus gave him life in prison.

= = =

Quoting Corinthians is not primary external evidence. Rejected.

For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper. For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you?

Steefen
Furthermore, “each of you goes ahead with your own supper” not the bread and wine, body and blood of Jesus, you are eating and drinking your own menu. And to make it worse, you do not share your food with those let fortunate. While they are thirsty, you get drunk.

So, your primary evidence is from Paul whose existence is not substantiated by sources (plural) external to the New Testament and what you present as primary evidence shows the Corinthians weren’t really buying the cannibalistic menu of Jesus, they were bringing their own food and drink.

Alright, you had your chance to make your case. The judgment is: you didn’t win your case.

Mark 1:1

Some bibles say Christ. Some bibles say Messiah.

** you do not have permission to see this link **
This is the beginning of the gospel of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.

** you do not have permission to see this link **
THE beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Messianism is about political independence, Robert. People in the late 20s/early 30s knew that. Agrippa I knew that. People in Judea and Galilee knew that in the late 60s.  It is not about post-death salvation because a person committed sins that need to be forgiven because they were or were not observant of Yom Kippur.

Second, if you want to say Moses was at the Transfiguration for the Law and Elijah for the Prophets, Paul is not part of that conversation because as Bart suggested Paul was not advocating: be a proselyte to orthodox Judaism first.

Third, the Gospel of Mark is not built on a Messiah built on prophecies by Isaiah (with Elijah representing Isaiah). Isaiah never said, God has to change his mind about Abraham not killing Isaac. I’m going to have to kill my own son because Yom Kippur just isn’t good enough.

Bart Ehrman

The problem is that these passages do not mention the messiah and were originally not about the messiah and were never taken by non-Christian interpreters to be about the messiah.

The most obvious example is Isaiah 53:  “For he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement for our peace was upon him, and by his wounds we were healed.”   That’s clearly talking about the future messiah, right?  That’s a clear prediction of Jesus, right in the Hebrew Bible, written centuries before Jesus was born, no?   See!!  The Bible predicts Jesus’ death as the suffering messiah!  (Not just this verse, but multiple verses in Isaiah 53 – read it yourself and you’ll see what I mean.)

But in fact, Isaiah 53 is not talking about the messiah.  Read it carefully.  Where does the term “messiah” ever occur in it?  It doesn’t.   But surely it could be *about* the messiah without using the term, right?  Well, possibly.  But read the entire context more carefully, and notice two things:

• The suffering of the “Servant of the Lord” (the one being discussed here) is indicated as something that has *already* happened at the time of writing.  It is his vindication by God that is future.   The Servant has already experienced pain, misery, and death.
• And who is this one who has suffered but will be vindicated? Read the context of Isaiah 40-53.   The answer is clear.  He is called the servant of the Lord.  He is one who has suffered.  In the context of Isaiah 40-53 it is the people of Israel who have suffered.  God is going to vindicate them (just read Isaiah 40!).   The suffering servant, then, is Israel.  You don’t need to take my word for it.  Isaiah himself explicitly indicates who the suffering Servant of the Lord is.  It is not the future messiah.  Notice in particular ** you do not have permission to see this link **, where the author tells you whom he is referring to when speaking of the servant:  “You are my servant, Israel”

Christians reinterpreted passages of Scripture to make them refer to Jesus so that it appeared that Jesus had been predicted by the prophets of old.