Iskander

I’ll let you into the secret of iskander, but don’t tell others: the gospels have been written by atheists on the make. Keep this knowledge secret

Justin martyr, Ireneaus...the council of Nicaea...the infallible popes...are of no importance when it comes to considering what the man known to us as Jesus might have taught and done. Only Mark allows a glimpse of what now lays buried under the need to sell a profitable product.

Rick Sumner

As noted above, see p. 237-238, and the discussion of Matthew. Casey considers this "secondary, " and links it to the "second coming, " thus blaming the church and not his presumed Aramaic source, but he's pretty clear.

"Divine" is not synonymous with "God." That Casey argues that John has a far higher Christology in no way excludes divine aspects to earlier sources.

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2

(edited to clarify)

Rick Sumner

None of this is terribly relevant to the statement I took contention with, which was only what the consensus on the intentions of the gospel authors was, but for what my opinion is worth, "celestial superhero" would probably be pretty close.

But this does not mean that it needed to be created or couldn't be pre-existent. Was Michael created? I'm not aware of any tradition that so much as suggests it.

Diogenes the Cynic

Mark makes it clear that Jesus is adopted. The Holy Spirit enters him at the baptism and leaves him on the cross. When he begins his ministry, he does so "in the power of the Spirit." He does miracles by the Spirit, and this ability is dependent on the faith of others. This same "power" abandons him on the cross.

The reason John is so insistent on it's Logos preface is specifically to counter adoptionism.

Mark's Jesus then disappears from the tomb, implying a bodily ascension to Heaven (which I think is all mark intended to imply) meaning (to Mark) that he will return as Daniel's "son of man." Mark could not have thought Jesus was preexistent in this role because he wasn't up in Heaven until after the crucifixion.

Incidentally, doesn't Maurice Casey say that Daniel's "son of man" is just an metaphor for Israel? I'm pretty sure he does.

Rick Sumner

Meh. Could be. I'm not interested enough in the exegesis of the passages to get into it. It doesn't matter to my claim, which was that a lesser status as a divine figure does not demand creation. I didn't comment on Markan christology one way or the other.

Unless it was originally a hymn to John the Baptist, as Brown would have it. Or a response to docetism, as Riley would have it.

The context is gone, and it's consistent with several readings. Best to concede our ignorance.

Sort of. Not all Israel. Just the good ones. Though that's not really him saying it, it predates him by a wide margin. He's just echoing.

Collins (The Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the Book of Daniel, JBL Vol. 93, No. 1 (Mar., 1974), pp. 50-66) dates it all the way back to 1927. (note 2)

Diogenes the Cynic

I would argue that it does in Judaism. YHWH has to be the creator of everything. Suggesting that another entity was coexistent or coequal with YHWH would be heretical even absent any claimed human avatar.

Rick Sumner

Again, are you aware of any evidence that Michael was created? Any indication, in any tradition, that angels had to be created?

I'm not looking for a guess about what Judaism would or wouldn't allow, but an attested tradition about the creation of an archangel, or at the very least a pre-Christian hint that the lack of such a tradition made anyone uncomfortable.

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2

Diogenes the Cynic

Book of Jubilees, 2:2:


For on the first day He created the heavens which are above and the earth and the waters and all the spirits which serve before him -the angels of the presence, and the angels of sanctification, and the angels [of the spirit of fire and the angels] of the spirit of the winds, and the angels of the spirit of the clouds, and of darkness, and of snow and of hail and of hoar frost, and the angels of the voices and of the thunder and of the lightning, and the angels of the spirits of cold and of heat, and of winter and of spring and of autumn and of summer and of all the spirits of his creatures which are in the heavens and on the earth, (He created) the abysses and the darkness, eventide <and night>, and the light, dawn and day, which He hath prepared in the knowledge of his heart.

Jubilees is at least 100 BCE (though arguably even older).

Rick Sumner

Huh. There you go. Thanks.

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2

Solo

The appearance of the spirit does not mean necessarily that Mark believed Jesus was "adopted" in the sense later adoptionist schools understood it. Even if I accept the argument of Ehrman that the 'son of God' was added to Mk 1:1 as an anti-adoptionist gloss, it still does not confirm that the annunciation to Jesus at the Jordan and the descent of the spirit, constitutes adoption in the gospeller's mind. Paul believed himself predestined for his career 'from his mother's womb' yet his appointment did not occur until medias res (Gal 1:15).

Best,
Jiri