I realize you’re making an argument about Mark’s intentions here, not about the true nature of Jesus (which is what you’re really trying to defend indirectly), but it’s still a very weak argument.  There is nothing here to argue pre-existence.  Mark belives in prophecy, as to most people in that time (certainly pagans who have the Sibyls and other seers).  Of course he sees hints of Jesus in the OT, as did most Christians in this time period.  But in trying to find them–usually with very poor knowledge of Hebrew, often working from a bad Greek translation–they make a lot of very dubious connections.  

None of those OT passages argue pre-existence.  You don’t know Hebrew, so why should anyone take your interpretation of lines you can’t read in their original form seriously?  It takes many years of study, not just of the language itself, but of the way it was used then, the context in which the lines were written.  As with the gospel authors (who studied far more than you), you can project anything you like into these texts.  You make them mean what you want them to mean.  It’s nothing unusual, it’s been going on for thousands of years now.  

If Jesus was a pre-existent divine being, why not Elijah and Moses, who performed greater miracles, and were taken up bodily into heaven–and were directly compared with Jesus in Mark?  Jesus hobnobs with them as equals.  There is no sign they see him as their superior.  But their tasks are accomplished and his is still ongoing.  

Obviously Mark believes Jesus was the greatest and final figure in this line of prophets and saviors–and his mission is to all humanity, not just the Jews.  But the fact remains, Mark saw Jesus as a mortal man.  His nature is akin to that of previous figures who were born as men, but became semi-divine through faith.  

Sorry, posting early in the morning–Elijah was taken up bodily into heaven.  Moses was buried, but the location of his grave was unknown.  Both were in heaven, according to Mark, and came down to confer with Jesus.  Mark clearly suggesting a direct parallel between the OT prophets and Jesus, which is to say, calling Jesus a mortal man who is invested with divine power. 

Jews at that time did believe there were individuals who were born as ordinary human beings but had some higher status, equating to divinity.  The term ‘Son of Man’ was not normally used in relation to Daniel’s prophecy (which was of course not related to Jesus or this time period in any way), but rather to denote a living man of upright character and deep faith.  Mark may have blurred the lines between the two meanings.  Perhaps Jesus did as well.  But all Christians believed Jesus had been born as other men, until the myth of the immaculate conception took hold, which happened a long time after Jesus and his family were all gone.  When the living memory of the human Jesus was gone, and the mythical Christ became predominant. 

It applies to basically everyone who has not spent a lifetime not only learning the language in question, but how to apply that knowlede to ancient texts written from a different cultural perspective. 

We both know modern English.  That doesn’t make us experts on how to interpret Chaucer.  Even Shakespeare can be a problem.  Beowulf might as well be Greek.  

Nothing wrong with having your own interpretation, as long as you recognize it as such.  Translation is a dark art.  Something is always lost.  But in this type of situation, people who want to see certain OT texts as prophecies of Jesus (when in fact they are reactions to contemporary events, as is true of NT texts like Revelation) will simply make the text mean what they want it to mean, and truthfully, more understanding of the language is an impediment to that desire.  As Bart himself found out. 

Except Peter could briefly walk on the water as well.  Then he lost faith, and sank.  

It’s all about faith, for Mark’s Jesus.  Anyone can do the same miracles as him, if they believe–and in his hometown, he can do very little.  Because people around him don’t believe?  That would be true in many other towns where he did miracles.  How could he ever have done one miracle if people around him had to believe he could, never having seen him do one, or heard stories about it?  How could he build a reputation as a wonder worker, if he couldn’t do miracles surrounded by people who didn’t believe in him?  

No, he couldn’t do miracles in Nazareth because they knew him as a snot-nosed boy.  It impacts his own faith, and without that, he can do nothing.   

Did you ever see Carl Dreyer’s film Ordet?  It’s a lot like that.  Faith and love are the only magic.  That’s where God is, if God is.  

Sorry about the error (which I will doubtless make again someday) but if you’re a gospel completist, doesn’t really make any difference, since none of them are allowed to be wrong, and Matthew’s Jesus has to be divine as well.  The argument is invariably about whether any of the gospel authors didn’t think Jesus was the divine Son of God with inherent (not borrowed) power.

What Matthew demonstrates in his addition is simply the logical conclusion to what Mark’s Jesus says, over and over again.  Anyone could do what he does, and more.  It’s about faith.  If Jesus is special, it’s because he was chosen by God at his baptism–with his sins forgiven though the instrumentality of John the Baptist, he becomes a worthy vessel for the Holy Spirit.  But this merely enhances his ability to do what any human with faith could do.  He’s simply trying to share the revelation he received, and is repeatedly frustrated at the lack of faith and understanding those around him show.  He’s been elevated to a higher plane, but he began at a lower one.  The question, really, isn’t whether he’s divine, but how and when he got there.  He got there at his baptism, and can remain there only as long as he believes.  In the Kingdom, everyone will believe, and no one will ever fall from grace.  But in this world, it’s a constant struggle to avoid being dragged back down again.  

For Mark, if Jesus was a divine being, there’d be no point to the story.  If you have to be divinely conceived, or a pre-existent divine being (as in John’s gospel) in order to be worthy, then what was Jesus talking about?  Mark knows Jesus talked a lot about how anyone could do the same as him–was he lying?  Impossible.  Therefore, he could not have been anything other than a man, born as other men, subject to the same doubts–but able to rise above them.    

The divine Jesus came about because Christians increasingly realized they couldn’t do miracles, and still had a hard time living good lives, though they certainly tried.  Faith alone wasn’t enough to reach the goal they sought, encouraged by Mark as much as anyone (I would love to be able to control the weather).  They remained human.  Therefore, Jesus must have been more than human.  So increasingly, his human flaws and errors were edited out of the picture.  And the idea became not to try and become his equal (or his better, which I firmly believe he thought was possible), but simply to  be justified through faith in his divinity.  

The underlying ethic remained–because Mark and Matthew were preserved–it’s there for those willing to see it.  But for most, it’s easier to just say “He was God, and we should worship him.”  And let him forgive their sins, which they go on committing, and maybe they’re happier that way, I don’t know.

Mark’s gospel was probably not just written for Gentiles, being the earliest (and the least hostile to unconverted Jews).  

From the moment Jesus was crucified, those who wanted to believe he was Messiah had no choice but to reformulate.  What else could they do?  It was going on long before Mark.  

You can’t think entirely in terms of the gospel authors writing what their audience wanted to hear–it’s an interactive process, writers and readers.  Writers have ideas they want to get across–readers have stories they want to see enacted in their minds.  The writer needs to appeal to his/her readers, or there won’t be any.  The reader doesn’t just want his/her own preconceptions reflected back, because that’s boring–tell me something new!  The Jewish ideas were exciting and different to pagans.  But inevitably, pagan ideas did creep in, because offending Jewish sensibilities became less and less of a concern.  The Jewish ideas got retrofitted for a pagan audience. 

Pagans knew all about ‘adoption’, as Bart has explained.  Augustus was the adopted son of Julius.  Adopted sons might have higher status than natural ones.  And Jews would not be offended by this, at least not to the same extent as they were by the notion of Yahweh acting like Zeus.  Jews believed certain individuals–Moses, Elijah, Elisha–might be Chosen by God, empowered to a degree far beyond ordinary mortals.  Not gods, but with powers that certainly seemed godlike at times.  Less than God, more than man. 

So it’s a good compromise between the two major groups within early Christianity.  As time went on, and the Jewish contingent became smaller and smaller, the Virgin Birth story took hold.  But it must have been very controversial at first (all the more since Jesus’ own family was still around to contradict it).