Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 02-13-2012, 07:52 AM

In Matthew 22:45 the question is how Jesus could be David's son if David calls "him" Lord. This is repeated in Mark 12:37 and Luke 20:44.
So how was this supposed to conform to the nativity in Luke and Matthew?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

And of course you could add that since the gospels used Psalms in the mouth of Jesus to deny he was the descendant of David, then how did Jesus get a nativity in Matthew and Luke, and how did he get to be a descendant of David in Romans 1?

Toto · 02-13-2012, 09:10 AM

Duvduv - if you ask a question and no one has an answer, you might need to do some research on your own, or consider asking Robert M. Price, the Bible Geek, rather than just repeating it.

Duvduv · 02-13-2012, 09:37 AM

Yes, thanks. I was trying just to clarify the point to the exact verses involved.
Besides, it seems as though I am being singled out here by your "monitoring" of my postings among the participants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Duvduv - if you ask a question and no one has an answer, you might need to do some research on your own, or consider asking Robert M. Price, the Bible Geek, rather than just repeating it.

sotto voce · 02-13-2012, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

And of course you could add that since the gospels used Psalms in the mouth of Jesus to deny he was the descendant of David

That's a misunderstanding.

Duvduv · 02-13-2012, 11:43 AM

WHAT is a misunderstanding??

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

And of course you could add that since the gospels used Psalms in the mouth of Jesus to deny he was the descendant of David

That's a misunderstanding.

Vorkosigan · 02-15-2012, 02:59 AM

Duvduv, there's an excursus on this on my Mark site.

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark10.html#10X

tanya · 02-15-2012, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan's web site

We might begin to suspect that we had found the source of the baptism story in Mark 1:9-11. After all, the same themes appear there. For example, Psalm 151 uses "baptism" as a metaphor for death, just as Mark 10:38-39 does:

Psalm 151: Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into him were baptized into his death?

What?

Where do you find that reading of Psalm 151?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanders' translation from Dead Sea Scrolls

5. He sent his prophet to anoint me,
Samuel to make me great;
My brothers went out to meet him,
Handsome of figure and appearance.
6. Though they were tall of stature
And handsome by their hair,
The Lord God chose
them not.
7. But he sent and took me from behind the
flock and anointed me with holy oil.
And he made me leader to his people
and ruler over the sons of his covenant.

This is anointment, not baptism. Celebration of a new leader, not foreboding about death.....Pouring olive oil over a king, not drinking wine converted to blood; acknowledging brilliant leadership, not mourning a forthcoming execution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by World English Bible Mark 10:38-39

But Jesus said to them, 'You don't know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?'

They said to him, 'We are able.' Jesus said to them, 'You shall indeed drink the cup that I drink, and you shall be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with;

Main point: I don't follow how this serves as illustration of "Mark", whoever he was, incorporating Psalm 151 into his text. The two seem wholly disconnected to me.

Guy de Maupassant met Ivan Turgenev at Gustave Flaubert's home. Does that explain why Gustav Mahler wrote Kindertotenlieder?

:constern01:

Duvduv · 02-15-2012, 05:23 AM

From the context of the mention of Psalm 110what is the author of GMark trying to say? If he is saying that Jesus is so great to be called Lord by King David, yet is not the Davidic messiah, then WHO is he, and just WHAT is his role among the Jews?! On the other hand I still don't understand the attempt to reconcile this reference with the idea that the author wants to indicate that his Jesus IS the Davidic messiah. It doesn't seem to suggest the possibility that David could call his descendant Lord since the messiah is greater than him.
And of course we can't forget that Jesus is at least admitting to a problem in GMark, I.e. that GMark doesn't tell us anything at all about his genealogy or who his father is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Duvduv, there's an excursus on this on my Mark site.

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark10.html#10X

aa5874 · 02-15-2012, 08:50 AM

The claim that gMark used the Pauline writings is absurd and without a shred of evidence.

1. The author of gMark mentioned a character called John the Baptist.

There is NO mention whatsoever of John the Baptist in ALL writings under the name of Paul.

2. The author of gMark claimed John the Baptist did Baptize for the Remission of Sins.

There is NOT one claim in the Pauline writings that the Remission of Sins was gotten from by Baptism in water and was offered by John.

It is MOST significant that the author claimed John Baptized for Remission of Sins and that ALL of Judea and Jerusalem were Bapitized of John confessing their sins.

Mark 1:4 KJV

Quote:

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

5And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

The Pauline writings have NOTHING whatsoever, absolutely NOTHING about Remission of Sins by the Baptism of John.

It is claimed in the Pauline writings that Paul was NOT Sent to Baptise and Remission of Sins is by the Death and Resurrection of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV

Quote:

For Christ sent me not to baptize , but to preach the gospel....

Romans 10:9 KJV

Quote:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

gMark's John the Baptist is a complete CONTRADICTION of the Pauline teachings.

gMark's John was CALLED to BAPTISE and to offer SALVATION to ALL the Jews by BAPTISM for Remission of Sins.

It is UTTERLY baseless, unsubstantiated and hopelessly illogical that the author of gMark used the Pauline writings.

Duvduv · 02-15-2012, 09:29 AM

aa5874, you must be aware that there are some mythists who interpret GMark as an ALLEGORY of the mystery/celestial Christ sect of which "Paul" was believed to be a member. Thus, as an allegory of exoteric ideas it is at least theoretically possible that the author of GMark embellished the story for those who were not initiates into the esoteric mystery.

I would agree however, that there are many differences in GMark from the epistles, not the least of which is that the Christ of the epistles is some sort of savior/messiah, whereas in GMark it is only hinted at possibly with the term "Son of Man," which is never used in the epistles.
However, as I asked in another thread in reference to the mention of Psalm 110, if the author of GMark did not believe that his Jesus was the descendant of David as the messiah, then WHO was he in a theological sense?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2012, 09:10 AM	#22
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Duvduv - if you ask a question and no one has an answer, you might need to do some research on your own, or consider asking Robert M. Price, the Bible Geek, rather than just repeating it.

02-15-2012, 02:59 AM	#26
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Duvduv, there's an excursus on this on my Mark site. http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark10.html#10X

02-15-2012, 09:29 AM	#30
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	aa5874, you must be aware that there are some mythists who interpret GMark as an ALLEGORY of the mystery/celestial Christ sect of which "Paul" was believed to be a member. Thus, as an allegory of exoteric ideas it is at least theoretically possible that the author of GMark embellished the story for those who were not initiates into the esoteric mystery. I would agree however, that there are many differences in GMark from the epistles, not the least of which is that the Christ of the epistles is some sort of savior/messiah, whereas in GMark it is only hinted at possibly with the term "Son of Man," which is never used in the epistles. However, as I asked in another thread in reference to the mention of Psalm 110, if the author of GMark did not believe that his Jesus was the descendant of David as the messiah, then WHO was he in a theological sense?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.