RUmike

Helpmabob, you must be using a doctrinally biased bible. You have Mark's response correct, but not the other two. Matthew replies, "You have said so," and Luke replies, "You say that I am" (NRSV). Neither of them admit to the charge as in your quotes.

In fact, this leads scholars to believe that Mark's response originally read in the same way, and that it was later changed.

How could Jesus have a different purpose in each gospel? The author's of the gospels certainly had different purposes in writing, but it makes no sense for Jesus to have different purposes. Did he live 4 lives, so that each gospel writer may have a life with a different purpose to write about?

This also brings up the contradiction that Mark states Jesus never taught publicly without using parables, but John's Jesus only teaches in long philosophical discourses.

I could go on about some of the other things you wrote, but this is getting away from the original topic. All the synoptics make it clear that Jesus is the Son of God, yes. But this does not make him equal to or one with the Father. Afterall, wasn't every Davidic king a Son of God also? Certainly they weren't God.

Zeichman

I think your conflation of what Jesus believed and the evangelists believed is problematic. Jesus teaching that all were children of God is plausable. Jesus teaching that HE was THE Son of God is at best unlikely. The unique divine sonship of Jesus is definitely what the evangelists believed and not Jesus. The "definite" sonship is the creation of the evangelists and/or earlier communities. The indefinite sonship may go back to Jesus, but some is likely the creation of the evangelists (such as the opening words of the Lord's prayer in Matthew, which is absent in the Lukan form, despite the fact that type of thinking is evident throughout the prayer).

RUmike

Am I right in saying that the divine sonship, as created by the evangelists, does not equate Jesus with God?

Howard Beale

Any quibble with your staement would be very minor. I was addressing only what Jesus said, not what the gospel authors said or thought or what Jesus thought -- ok, so I had to quiblle. In any event I agree with you.

Howard Beale

Correct, as I see it. Jesus never claimed to be God either.

RUmike

I also see that Mark and Matt/Luke have two completely different views of Jesus' sonship. Matt and Luke clearly believe Jesus to be God's son literally, by means of the virginal conception. However, Mark likely sees Jesus as God's son by adoption, in exactly the same manner that a Davidic king became the son of God at his coronation. This seems evident by three major factors: 1) when Mark has God reveal to Jesus, "You are my son; with you I am well pleased", this is a paraphrasing of Ps. 2, which states, "You are my son; today I have adopted you." (2) Mark doesn't mention a virginal conception, and so he probably doesn't know about one. (3) Mark portrays Jesus' family as an obstacle and completely blind to his value. Jesus' relatives even thought he was "out of his mind."

(1) and (2) are enough to imply the conclusion about adoption in Mark. But (3) is the real damning factor in my opinion. Because, if Mark knew at least the basic story of the virginal conception (how an angel came to Joseph/Mary and told him/her about Jesus and what he would become), how could he think that Jesus' family would try to impede his work and think he was crazy? How could Mary forget what the angel told her about her child to be? Obviously Mark doesn't believe Jesus was virginally conceived, and thus he must see Jesus as God's son by adoption. This puts him precisely on the level of a Davidic king, and thus certainly not equal to God or God himself.

Zeichman

Ah, gotcha. Too much going on and I must've gotten confused.

And RUMike, I would agree with your assessment. But as I said, Lord Jesus Christ by Hurtado makes a decent, if ultimately unconvincing, case otherwise.