Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-12-2012, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I am not talking about Christianity, I'm talking about Judaism. and believe me, I know Christianity.

If you know it well, you also know that there is no unified Christology in the New Testament.

Mark makes it clear that he does not view God and Jesus as the same person. He makes it explicit, actually, in more than one verse.

So, you want to unify the Christology today??? Please, you are wasting time. Not even Christians of antiquity knew who or what Jesus was, except that he was DIVINE.

Again, why do you refuse to accept what is written in gMark and IMPOSE your imagination???

The Son of a God is considered a God in ancient Mythology.

It is without any reasonable doubt that Jesus is called the Son of God in gMark so gMark's Jesus is a God,.

The Divinity of gMark's Jesus does NOT magically disappear because you claim that Jesus and God are not the same person.

Both Jesus and God are products of Myth Fables in gMark.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-13-2012, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

I'm not saying it doesn't. It's the idea that the figure is divine which could constitute a technical charge of blasphemy.

But celestial is not divine. It was not blasphemy to say you were an angel, for instance.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-13-2012, 12:10 AM

Why does Mark say that Jesus and God have separate wills, aa?

dog-on · 04-13-2012, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I see and what in your opinion is Mark's intention regarding his famous Messianic secret? Is Mark talking about a Jewish Messiah?

This is only my opinion (which is changeable. I've learned not to invest supreme confidence in any opinion about this stuff) is that Mark conceived the Messiah as the "son of man" figure in Daniel who is depicted as descending from the clouds as a conquering liberator (an arguably celestial figure in this model, albeit not a god), and that Jesus' "secret" is that he knew he would fulfill this prophecy after he died and ascended and that Mark was explaining to his audience why Jesus wasn't recognized as the Messiah even by his own disciples while he was on earth.

Mark's apostles are never even told about the resurrection. The empty tomb is known about only by scared women who ran away and didn't tell anybody.

I think there is an apologetic at work here. Mark is explaining why the disciples didn't know he was the Messiah and telling his audience that they were now in on a secret that the disciples missed out on.

Sounds okay to me.

So, what do you think Mark's point was regarding the characters that did, in fact, recognize Jesus? What did those characters recognize Jesus as being?

Rick Sumner · 04-13-2012, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Under the Romans, the Jews did not have authority to carry out capital sentences.

Do you have a solid cite for this? I've had difficulty ever researching a definitive answer on this. The Gospels say the Sanhedrin couldn't execute criminals, but I've never seen anything else to support that. Josephus says that James (whether he was "brother of the so-called Christ or not) was executed by the High Priest, and Acts says Paul was present at the stoning of Stephen (only a year or two after the crucifixion in Gospel chronology.

So is there a source that demonstrates anything definitively?

Cicero's rendition of the twelve tables explicitly states that capital punishment can only occur after a conviction, and Cicero unquestionably did not have non-Roman magistrates in mind.

That said, it's questionable whether this would have mattered to anyone in the provinces, particularly in areas resistant to Romanization. Our major sources on Roman law for the period are Cicero and Seneca, both of whom abhor capital punishment, which further colors our evidence.

A stoning might be ignored, providing nobody important (ie Roman) was killed. But it's difficult to imagine a crucifixion being permitted. Of course, its also difficult to imagine a provincial city permitted to build fortifications. Ask Vespasian and Titus how that worked out.

Judea was anomalous enough that generalities from Roman practice are especially difficult to apply.

So there are sources, but nothing to my knowledge that is definitive.

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-13-2012, 05:59 AM

It wouldn't have to be crucifixion, though. You're talking about the rules for Roman capital crimes, but that doesn't mean they necessarily cared what provincial priests did to to local peasants. That might have been seen as something outside of, or extracurricular to the Roman justice system.

We do have both Acts and Jospehus telling us that the High Priest stoned people.

Rick Sumner · 04-13-2012, 06:01 AM

Isn't that what I just said?

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-13-2012, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

This is only my opinion (which is changeable. I've learned not to invest supreme confidence in any opinion about this stuff) is that Mark conceived the Messiah as the "son of man" figure in Daniel who is depicted as descending from the clouds as a conquering liberator (an arguably celestial figure in this model, albeit not a god), and that Jesus' "secret" is that he knew he would fulfill this prophecy after he died and ascended and that Mark was explaining to his audience why Jesus wasn't recognized as the Messiah even by his own disciples while he was on earth.

Mark's apostles are never even told about the resurrection. The empty tomb is known about only by scared women who ran away and didn't tell anybody.

I think there is an apologetic at work here. Mark is explaining why the disciples didn't know he was the Messiah and telling his audience that they were now in on a secret that the disciples missed out on.

Sounds okay to me.

So, what do you think Mark's point was regarding the characters that did, in fact, recognize Jesus? What did those characters recognize Jesus as being?

Mark has Jesus being temporarily possessed by the Holy Spirit, and says he did all his tricks "in the power of the spirit," so I presume that when he's recognized by demons, they're recognizing the spirit.

I've never thought to take an inventory of everyone who recognizes him, though. Do you happen to know offhand who all recognizes Jesus' identity in Mark.

dog-on · 04-13-2012, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Sounds okay to me.

So, what do you think Mark's point was regarding the characters that did, in fact, recognize Jesus? What did those characters recognize Jesus as being?

Mark has Jesus being temporarily possessed by the Holy Spirit, and says he did all his tricks "in the power of the spirit," so I presume that when he's recognized by demons, they're recognizing the spirit.

I've never thought to take an inventory of everyone who recognizes him, though. Do you happen to know offhand who all recognizes Jesus' identity in Mark.

Besides demons, there is obviously the Roman centurian at the crucifixion at 15:9 and arguably the Syrophonecian woman at 7:24.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-13-2012, 07:33 AM

Thanks, I had forgotten about the centurion. One thing right off the bat he has in common with the Syrophenician woman is that they're both Gentiles. That would suggest that they play into Mark's narrative of the Jews not recognizing who Jesus was, even when Gentiles (Mark's audience) can see it.

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

04-13-2012, 12:10 AM	#113
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Why does Mark say that Jesus and God have separate wills, aa?

04-13-2012, 05:59 AM	#116
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	It wouldn't have to be crucifixion, though. You're talking about the rules for Roman capital crimes, but that doesn't mean they necessarily cared what provincial priests did to to local peasants. That might have been seen as something outside of, or extracurricular to the Roman justice system. We do have both Acts and Jospehus telling us that the High Priest stoned people.

04-13-2012, 06:01 AM	#117
Rick Sumner Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada Posts: 2,612	Isn't that what I just said? Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2

04-13-2012, 07:33 AM	#120
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Thanks, I had forgotten about the centurion. One thing right off the bat he has in common with the Syrophenician woman is that they're both Gentiles. That would suggest that they play into Mark's narrative of the Jews not recognizing who Jesus was, even when Gentiles (Mark's audience) can see it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.