Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 05-20-2013, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Is it really legitimate to use a text from John -- which says nothing about Jesus' ontological status - to say something about what Mark was up to?

The Christian religion and church always has for as long as there has been a written record.

Do I really need to quote all of the verses to be found within G 'Mark' that indicate that the writer intended for his readers to understand 'Jesus' as being a Divine being of higher birth, status, and Divine powers than his common men fellow Jews?

Chili · 05-20-2013, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

are we speaking of Greco Roman beings or the one whom Jews acknowledged?

One can search it, or put it in Greek, in Latin, or in Hebrew, and the end is still the same, the understood claim was one of being 'THE GOD'.

Raking Clivedurdle's personal knowledge or ignorance of languages over the coals is never going to change the fundamental sense of the Biblical statements.
He was understood, and presented by the NT writers as being 'THE God'.
He was understood by the Jewish Priesthood to be representing himself as being THE GOD'.

The textual evidence is clear, he was NOT applying the term for the status of being -a- 'son of GOD' in the general sense that applied to all Jewish men alike, but in a exclusive sense, Making or presenting himself as being THE Son of GOD, and THE ELOHIM of Israel. This is how the NT writers, and the early church understood these statements. And how Judaism has understood these statements.

There is only one and THE God always will be the ONLY one as the infinite concept wherein all Lord God's must present him as known first person to them wherefore then He was called Son Of God first.

The same is true with 'the woman' as there is only One and She is the divine Matrix of God by whom life is conceived that for Catholics equals love in the beauty of truth that for others may come across as the sour taste of a yogurt plant maybe, or good wine gone bad made from the grapes of God's wrath.

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-20-2013, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Is it really legitimate to use a text from John -- which says nothing about Jesus' ontological status - to say something about what Mark was up to?

The Christian religion and church always has for as long as there has been a written record.

Do I really need to quote all of the verses to be found within G 'Mark' that indicate that the writer intended for his readers to understand 'Jesus' as being a Divine being of higher birth, status, and Divine powers than his common men fellow Jews?

Leaving aside that you equivocate and beg the question when you use terms like "Divine", is Jesus portrayed this way (what higher birth does he have in Mark?) because he was thought to be ontologically God or because, like the Lord's Messiah in the Psalms of Solomon or in the DSS he has been raised up by God, and commissioned and empowered to get the god of Israel's business done.

You really haven't done much reading in the scholarly literature on the terms Son of God and Messiah, have you.

As I did with Clive, I highly recommend -- and I'll make this a condition of having any more discussion on the matter with you -- that you have a look at the articles by Collins that I cited. You might also want to have a look at Martin Hengle's Son of God (or via: amazon.co.uk) and Jimmy Dunn's Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Jeffrey

Sheshbazzar · 05-20-2013, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

-- and I'll make this a condition of having any more discussion on the matter with you --

Yes. I can understand why you would desire that.

Clivedurdle · 05-20-2013, 10:29 AM

Please would you expand your argument. The following does not compute.

Quote:

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen!

Is not that statement talking about a god?

spin · 05-20-2013, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

What is "fully god fully man" about?

About 451 CE.

Hey, whaddaya know? That gave me an unexpected

.

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-20-2013, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Please would you expand your argument. The following does not compute.

Quote:

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen!

Is not that statement talking about a god?

Why on god's green earth would you ever think so?

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 05-20-2013, 04:36 PM

It is most amusing that people here do not know what is meant by son of God in gMark.

gMark has at least 600 verses and there is NO ambiguity that Jesus was depicted as the Son of a God--God Incarnate with no human father.

In fact, Jesus acted and admitted he was the Son of a God in gMark.

And further, Jesus was acknowledged as the Son of the Most High God in gMark.

1. Mark 1:11

Quote:

And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

2. Mark 5:7

Quote:

And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.

3. Mark 9:7

Quote:

And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

4. Mark 14

Quote:

....Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62 And Jesus said, I am.......

5. Mark 15:39

Quote:

And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

In gMark, Jesus was the Son of a God that manifested himself as a man who did things that were humanly impossible.

Jesus of gMark was TRULY not man.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.