aa5874

ALL Christians did not say the SAME things about Jesus for 2000 years.

You seem not to know what you are talking about.

Some claimed Jesus was a SPIRIT.

"NO FLESH" means "non-historical".

The Jesus of gMark was NON-HISTORICAL, (NO FLESH and NO BLOOD).

.

In gMark people THOUGHT Jesus had a biological mother, brothers and sisters but NO earthly father.

NOT one time in ALL OF gMark did Jesus talk about an earthly father. ZERO.

Every opportunity that the author of gMark got to show that his Jesus had an earthly father he utterly fails to deliver.

Even the word "father" is not found when his supposed family is mentioned. But, Jesus, the Son of God, in gMark will say who are his REAL mother, brother, and sister.


Examine Mark 3:31-35 - But, who is the FATHER of the Son of God in gMark?

Who is the FATHER of the ONE who has the power to FORGIVE sins?

Who is the FATHER of the ONE who walks on water?

What do you think?

gMark's Jesus had NO FLESH

TedM

aa,

you are bringing up a non-issue. Christians have been saying the same thing for 2000 years.

"no flesh" does NOT mean non-historical. Mark's Jesus was made of flesh (skin) and blood. You are making things up.



Ridiculous. You can't find a single place in Mark where the people thought Jesus did NOT have an earthly father. Give me a quote where they say "Jesus, son of Mary, but fatherless". There is a reason they thought he had a mother brother and sisters. It's because he was covered with flesh, and had a history they were familiar with. If they thought he had not had a father, they ALL would have followed him.


There are simple explanations for this. Too hard for you though..

"Son of God" is a religious belief of the author--same belief Christians have had for 2000 years. What a boring thread..the only thing you have introduced here of interest is the idea that Mark did not ever mention a human as being the father of Jesus. But, since this is no conflict with traditional Christian belief, it is a big "ho hum"..

aa5874

You don't know what you are talking about.

Again, ALL Christians have NOT said the same things about Jesus Christ for 2000 years.

Some Christians claimed Christ had NO FLESH.

You don't know what you are talking about.

"NO FLESH" means "non-historical.

The Jesus of gMark was the Son of a God. He was NOT fatherless.

I will GIVE you some verses that CLEARLY identify the FATHER of gMark's Jesus.

Mr 1:1 - Mr 3:11 - Mr 5:7 - It is CLEAR that Jesus was NOT fatherless. His FATHER was a most high GOD.

Now, please QUOTE a passage from gMark that shows Jesus had an EARTHLY father.

You cannot.


Why do BELIEVE gMark is history when the unknown author did NOT claim he was writing history?

Why do BELIEVE gMark is history when many events about gMark's Jesus appears to be non-historical and implausible?

Please state what external corroborative source of antiquity SHOW that gMark's Jesus ACTUALLY had any followers and ATCUALLY had an earthly father.

The unknown author of gMark wrote a STORY about a SON of God.


Of course there is a SIMPLE explanation. The Jesus of gMark had NO earthly father. The unknown author had ALREADY stated that HIS JESUS was the SON of a GOD.

Well, NOT all Christians had the same beliefs about Jesus .

Some Christians BELIEVED that Christ was some kind of ANIMAL and that Jesus was a SPIRIT of some kind of GOD.

Well, you have just CONTRADICTED yourself. It most apparent that YOU are INTERESTED in this thread.

You seem to BELIEVE that gMark wrote history and BELIEVE that Jesus had an EARTHLY father.

But, you have a massive problem. Your BELIEF or FAITH based BELIEF that gMark's Jesus actually HAD FLESH, had an EARTHLY father, cannot be substantiated, NOT even in gMark.

1.NOWHERE in gMark does the unknown author STATE that Jesus had an earthly father.

2.Nowhere in gMark does the unknown author state the so-called husband of the supposed mother of Jesus.

3. Nowhere in gMark does gMark's Jesus even talk about an earthly father.

4. The unknown author wrote about a SON of a GOD who was IDENTIFIED as the SON of a God by SPIRITS.

gMark's Jesus had NO FLESH.

TedM

<edit> As I said, Christians have been saying the same thing you have been saying for 2000 years. I never said "ALL Christians". Worthless thread and a waste of time. <edit> I like sincerity <edit> Bye bye.

aa5874

Your post is most laughable. You BLATANTLY make irrelevant comments and FALSELY accuse others of doing what you have done.

This is PRECISELY what I expect from one who cannot support their FAITH based BELIEFS about the Jesus of gMark.

gMark's Jesus had NO FLESH.

So, far I have shown or brought to your attention that the unknown of author of gMark in the very first verse of his story claimed Jesus was the Son of a God.

It was pointed out to you that Spirits claimed Jesus was the Son of a God in the same story and that Jesus forgave SINS which was implied only a God can do.

Then, in the gMark story, Jesus WALKS on the sea during a storm.

It is NOW quite CLEAR that gMark's Jesus had NO real FLESH.

But, the story continues.

Examine Mark 9.2 In the gMark story, Jesus could change his APPEARANCE.

Real human flesh cannot transfigure.

It must be CLEAR by now that gMark's Jesus had NO FLESH.

TedM

aa, I apologize for my earlier remarks. I don't know if you are being sincere or not. I'll limit my remarks to your comments, under the assumption that you are being sincere.


Very true. He does claim this and as such is bestowing on Jesus certain qualities that a man of 100% flesh could not have if he is subject to ONLY the laws of the natural universe as we know it.

Good points in support of the idea that Mark's Jesus had more abilities than a regular human being would have. I find your use of the word "FLESH" in this context confusing, since it normally refers to a body--skin, bones, muscle, blood, etc.. Mark's Jesus was described in such a way that the reader would also come to think of Jesus as appearing to have a human body. Do you agree that Mark's Jesus looked like a human being to the people in the story--so much so that the people were unbelieving and surprised when he did supernatural things?

How do you know this? To claim this, you would have to know all of the laws of the universe, which no one does. I think what I would agree with is a statement more along these lines: " Human flesh which is not subject to the intervention of supernatural laws cannot transfigure."

Mark's Jesus is a human being with supernatural capability. This is the same Jesus that many Christians have believed in for 2000 years.

Certainly you have the right to believe that such a Jesus cannot exist. But, even if you are correct, Mark still may have believed that such a Jesus DID exist, and wrote about him. That's why to me Mark's Jesus (ie the Jesus Mark was describing) did have flesh and real flesh. He also had flesh that was subject to supernatural intervention. Whether ANY portrayal of Jesus by Mark represented a real entity or not (ie one that really existed) is a different issue.

I hope that makes my position more clear, and that we can come to a mutual agreement.

aa5874

Your apology is irrelevant.


The author of gMark did present his Jesus as the Son of God as stated in Mark 1.1.

Please STATE exactly where in gMark that the unknown author wrote that his Jesus had AN EARTHLY FATHER?

But have presented NOTHING, ZERO, in gMark for your CONSISTENT unsubstantiated assertion over and over that gMark's Jesus was human.

Again, where in gMark did the unknown author claimed Jesus had an earthly father? WHERE?

But, you are NOT confused. I have ALREADY told you EXACTLY what I mean.

gMark's Jesus had NO FLESH means gMark's Jesus was NON-HISTORICAL


In a fiction story there are NO real people. It is the READER of the story who will determine whether or not the story may be historical or not.

But, NOWHERE in gMark does the author even claim he was writing history and many events in gMark appear implausible and fictitious with respect to his Jesus.

Why do you believe gMark is history? What external source of antiquity corroborates a SINGLE event in gMark which involves Jesus.

Are you claiming that you KNOW human flesh can transfigure?

My statement that "REAL human flesh cannot transfigure" cannot be proven to be false and is extremely reasonable.

Once you can reasonably demonstrate that " real human flesh can transfigure" then I will withdraw my statement.

But, please review your statement. It is flawed. You may have to withdraw the statement.

You have admitted that you don't all the laws of the universe. You REALLY don't know if I have to know all the laws of the universe to claim that "real human flesh cannot transfigure."

One of the laws of the universe that YOU don't know may STATE that I don't have to know ALL the laws of the universe to make ANY claim about gMark's Jesus.

Tell me about Supernatural Laws.

What Book describes the LAWS of the Supernatural and who studied, and recorded DATA and under what controlled conditions were these Laws of the Supernatural observed?

Please state a most recent time when the Laws of the Supernatural intervened with respect to REAL human flesh?

Again, I must repeat. Not all Christians of antiquity believed the same things about Jesus. There were INNUMERABLE beliefs about Jesus called the Christ.

But, 2000 years later, what do you believe? The same as those Christians that you mentioned.

I believe that gMark's Jesus had NO FLESH was non-historical.

You believe the same 2000 year old story even though gMark never claimed he wrote history and that Jesus had an earthly father.

Your belief about gMark's Jesus is about 2000 years old and counting.

So, you were NOT confused at all. Why did you claim to be confused when I stated gMark's Jesus had NO FLESH when you demonstrate that you have ALWAYS understood?

In any event, I am only using the evidence or written statements provided in gMark to THEORISE that gMark's Jesus had NO FLESH.

My beliefs or theories are based on the evidence, the written statements from gMark itself.

Do you NOT see where gMark's Jesus walked on the sea in a storm?

Well, I believe that Jesus had NO FLESH as demonstrated in the story.

I only needed to know ONE Law of the UNIVERSE.

Sink or swim.



But, what LAWS of the Supernatural do you know? Again, you are claiming that I must know all the Laws of the UNIVERSE and you have also ADMITTED that you don't know all the LAWS and still ASSERT that the FLESH of Jesus was subject to Supernatural invention.

You are NOT making any sense at all. Admittedly, You REALLY don't know what you are talking about.

What Supernatural Laws?????

What Supernatural intervention???

Please NAME one SUPERNATURAL LAW?

But, you have NOTHING to support your belief that gMark's Jesus had FLESH. You came to the table with NOTHING and have ADMITTED that you don't know what you are talking about. All you have is a 2000 year old belief like the some Christians.

Please state where gMark's Jesus had an EARTHLY FATHER?

Please explain how your Jesus appeared to be a SPIRIT while he walked on the sea?

Why do you believe gMark is history when the unknown author never made such a claim?

Mr 6:49 - gMark's Jesus had NO FLESH based on the written statements in gMark.

TedM

He does not write that Jesus had an earthly father. I never said that he did.

What I have said is that Mark's Jesus had the appearance of being a human being in every way, but in addition to all of his humanness, he was able to do supernatural things. There is nothing in all of gMark that indicates that Mark's Jesus was unable to do what normal human beings do--there is nothing that says Jesus never needed to eat, or sleep, didn't have blood flowing through his veins, and didn't have an earthly father. There is nothing that says that "son of God" means God was his literal father. You are assuming that is what it means.

I think it would be better to just say what you mean--using the words "non-historical" instead of "no flesh" would be less confusing to readers.


Nowhere in Mark does he claim he is making things up either. If Mark was writing based on what he had heard (hearsay) then some of the things he heard could have been fiction and some could have been true. It is reasonable to theorize on that basis that the supernatural things were ficticious and that some of the non-supernatural things (ie Jesus was a person) were true.



I believe Mark could include at least some real history. There were real places, and real people in it. There are a number of external sources that mention Jesus and his following and his crucifixion and his area of residence and the time period. I don't want to debate that. Their existence -- not their accuracy -- is fact.


While I don't disagree with that, it cannot be proven true either.


Well, let me revise what I said then: You would have to know that there is no law of the universe that enables transormation to state as a fact that it can't happen. You don't know that, so you are simply making an assumption, a guess, and stating it as a fact.


Now that I can appreciate. I don't like it when people state their beliefs as conclusive facts without acknowledging that they are simply stating their belief based on this or that observation..


Much better. First time you have admitted these are theories, and not conclusive facts from your readings. You'll admit then that Mark's Jesus could well have had flesh and been historical if he was the true Son of God who could defy natural laws as we know them. You'll also admit that Mark's Jesus may have just been a regular man of who Mark knew some TRUE history and some FALSE stories, and weaved both the truth and the mythical stories into his portrayal?

But, you'll admit that this Law may be breakable? We just don't know that it is or isn't.



I don't think I said that. I meant to say that his flesh could have been subject, may have been subject, to some unknown law that enabled him to be a human being who could also do supernatural things. I can't name the law because I dont' know of one. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it doesn't mean anyone can claim to know that it doesn't exist. Rather, one can only claim to believe this or that, which you have now done.


I believe it could include some history because there are some natural elements to the story that sound plausible to me, the author never seems to indicate that he knew he was writing fiction, and it didn't take long before many people accepted the portrayal as a historical document, and we see no historical evidence that people of the time knew it to be a fictional story about a fictional character.

aa5874

Well, you don't have any written evidence to support your BELIEF that gMark's Jesus had an earthly father.


Again, NOTHING, ZERO written evidence , to support your claim that gMark's Jesus was human.

I COMPLETELY understand what YOU BELIEVE.

Your NEXT step is to provide the ACTUAL written evidence to support your BELIEFS.

Your are saying things that are SIMILAR to Christians from the 2ND century that Jesus APPEARED to be HUMAN.

Well, when Jesus WALKED on the sea, and when Jesus transfigured in gMark I have written evidence to support my claim.

You BELIEVE gMark is history. Why do you ASSUME gMark is history?

Where did the UNKNOWN author state he was writing history and where does he claim Jesus had an EARTHLY father?

You have ASSUMED, without any written evidence, that gMark is history and that Jesus had an human father.

You have ASSUMED that there are SUPERNATURAL LAWS.

You have assumed Supernatural Laws, without any evidence, will help your faith based belief about gMark's Jesus when you have NO idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

As of right now, the Laws of the Universe do NOT account for any Supernatural Laws.

You INVENT your OWN LAWS.

Please NAME one of YOUR Supernatural LAWS that has been INDEPENDENTLY observed and documented recently.

But, no other reader has stated that they did NOT understand. But, it would appear you claimed you did NOT when you really did.

No other poster did that.


You may have to REVIEW your statement and then have it WITHDRAWN immediately.

You have talked about Supernatural Laws. You have now horribly contradicted yourself.

You are implying that YOUR SUPERNATURAL LAWS are really LAWS of FICTION.

You have THEORIZED that the things which appear to follow SUPERNATURAL LAWS in gMark are FICTITIOUS.

How many times should I tell that I understand what you BELIEVE?

You need to go the NEXT step and SHOW where the unknown author of gMark wrote that Jesus had an EARTHLY father or where gMark's Jesus mentioned his earthly father.

Well, I want to DEBATE accuracy, veracity, and the written evidence, not your Supernatural Laws.

It is NOT accurate at all that a number of external sources mentioned gMark's Jesus.

The ONLY external forged source that mentioned Jesus mentioned a Jesus who was SEEN alive AFTER the third day. It must be NOTED that IN the SHORT VERSION of gMark, Jesus was NOT SEEN at all when the visitors went to the tomb and they RAN away trembling with fear.

Well, my theory is GOOD. "Real human flesh cannot transfigure". It does NOT violate any known LAW of the UNIVERSE.

And, the things which appear Supernatural have been ALREADY theorized by YOU to be fictitious.

Have you finished with your revision?

But, one can ONLY work with the PRESENT Laws of the UNIVERSE. The present LAWS of the UNIVERSE do not ALLOW human beings to WALK on the sea unaided and transfigure in an instant.

You don't KNOW if any other future LAW of the UNIVERSE will ever help you or help me. We are STUCK with the LAWS we have NOW.

1. No walking on the SEA.

2. No transfiguration

Why do you ASSUME that some future LAW OF THE UNIVERSE will help ONLY you?

One's BELIEF MUST be based on evidence NOT on FAITH.

I believe gMark's Jesus HAD NO FLESH because it is claimed and "witnessed" that Jesus WALKED on the sea and was INSTANTLY transfigured.

Why do you BELIEVE gMark is history and Jesus had an earthly father when the UNKNOWN author did NOT claim he was writing history, did NOT claim Jesus had an EARTHLY father and did write about many events that appear to be FICTION and IMPLAUSIBLE.

I don't like when people state their BELIEFS WITHOUT the written evidence from gMark.

My THEORIES are based on the written evidence in gMark.

1. Jesus WALKED on the SEA in gMark?

2. Jesus transfigured in gMARK.

3. The author of gMark did NOT mention that Jesus had an earthly father.

What are your assertions based on?

Supernatural intervention which YOU have already [u]THEORIZED is FICTITIOUS.

But, you are admitting that you DON'T know what you are talking about.

Once you DON'T know whether a PRESENT LAW can be ever broken then you are STUCK with the Present LAW.

SINK or SWIM.

Well this an excerpt of what you posted earlier.

And you have ALREADY THEORIZED that Supernatural events in gMark are FICTITIOUS.

Well, BELIEF and RHETORIC ALONE are the basis for YOUR BELIEF about gMark's Jesus.

You have UTTERLY FAILED to produce any written evidence of antiquity to support your BELIEFS and have ADMITTED or THEORIZED that gMark contain FICTITIOUS events.

Your BELIEF is EXTREMELY weak and completely UNSUBSTANTIATED.

Your BELIEF about gMark's Jesus is NOT really much different to MARCION and the Marcionites.

You believe that once people BELIEVE Jesus of gMark was real then he was.

SADLY, such a belief is NOT evidence that gMark's Jesus had FLESH.

You need to SHOW me written evidence.

You need to get the NAME of the EARTHLY father of Jesus in gMark.


gMark's Jesus had NO FLESH.

TedM

aa, you have once again displayed a remarkable inability to understand what I have said.

You are the one making a claim that Mark's Jesus didn't have an earthly father. Mark doesn't support this claim. All he does is says Jesus was the "son of God" which does not necessarily mean God was his father. And, Mark does NOT say that Jesus did not have an earthly father. What you need is for Mark to say this: " Jesus was born by a union of his father, God, and his mother Mary." or this "Jesus had no earthly father." Because Mark doesn't say this you are left theorizing without the evidence you need for proof.


Do humans walk, talk, eat, drink, sleep, pray, bleed, sweat? Plenty of evidence.

Sure, that's because Mark presented Jesus in that way. If you want to claim that it was ONLY in appearance you are still missing the proof with regard to not having an earthly father (see requirements above).


Read very carefully: No one on this earth including you can prove that having the ability to do supernatural things disqualifies one from being human.
You simply don't have enough information to prove it, do you?

No, I haven't. But, YOU have assumed that there are not, haven't you? What if you are wrong?

You are assuming this.

Lack of proof is not sufficient to say with certainty that they don't exist.


One said this:"As good as you are, aa, at interpreting scripture to make it mean whatever you need it to mean," another said "If he doesn’t know that a person without an earthly father can’t have flesh then it seems his argument fails." another said "in my view the audience reading gMark would view the product of a mortal and a god as mortal -- flesh and blood; perhaps superhuman, but still human" All of these suggest that your claim "no-flesh = non historical" was NOT understood because it makes no sense to the avg person. Ie, confusing language. It seems most posters that bothered to reply to this thread found it to be full of strange conclusions.

I have not contradicted myself at all. I did not imply that supernatural laws are laws of fiction. I said it is reasonable to take that position since we have not observed supernatural laws. Talking about supernatural laws and saying they may or may not exist does not contradict the idea that they may not exist because they haven't been observed. "may not exist" covers it.

That's your opinion. You don't like the quality of the evidence, which is fine, but it is a mistake in judgment on your part to say that external sources have not mentioned a Jesus that can be identified as the same person Mark was writing about.

No, YOU are stuck with the LAWS you believe exist and without they laws you believe do not exist. You can operate in that world, but cannot say that you are right. Only that you are consistent with what you observed. That's ALL.


This is a 'should' commandment from you. The TRUTH is that people can believe whatever they want to believe, based on evidence, desire, and imagination, or whatever reason they wish to have.

And, this is a belief based on your belief in natural laws. It is NOT a belief about Mark's understanding of his main character.

When you talk about "Mark's Jesus" you really appear to be talking about "aa's" Jesus. Do you get what I 'm saying yet or do I have to say it a million more times?



Nope. YOU are stuck with it because you choose to be stuck with it.

I don't limit the universe because I consider that to be an arrogant and foolhardy declaration of self-importance.

No, I've never said that. Go back and re-read what I've said and show me where I ever said that. You can't because I don't believe that.

I'm not the one making a claim aa. YOU are. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in this case. Nevertheless, EVEN if Mark would say that Jesus was conceived by GOD himself, this is not a criteria for concluding that Mark thought Jesus was not human, it is not a criteria for concluding that Jesus himself was not human, it is not a criteria for concluding that Jesus was non-historical either. None of the things you seem to want to conclude on the basis of Mark giving Jesus supernatural origin and abilities can be concluded with any certainty at all.

Your conclusions are simply theories, and that's all.