Maklelan

I'm not implying that that's the way Mark presented his Jesus, I'm explicitly stating it. This is the second time I've had to explain the difference to you.

I conclude that his Jesus was born as a human, but that at his baptism he was divinely adopted and endowed with divinity. He became a divine man.

I've never intimated in any sense of the word that that is normal. I said that it would not be an unacceptable literary motif.

I'm not asking you to accept it on a metaphysical level, I'm expecting you to acknowledge that that's how Mark conceived of Jesus.

aa5874

So, why are you giving the me the erronoeus impression that you don't believe gMark is history?

You BELIEVE gMark's Jesus was born normally even though it was PUBLICLY CIRCULATED that he was WITNESSED as he WALKED on the sea and TRANSFIGURED.

Now, when Jesus supposedly died and was buried did NOT his supposed body disappear.

gMARK'S Jesus was a PHANTOM.

gMARK'S Jesus was a MYTH Fable of a PHANTOM that appeared human but WALKED on water, Transfigured and when he died and was BURIED his body was NOT found in the TOMB.

gMark's Jesus was a MYTH Fable and possibly the same fable as or a modified version of MARCION'S Phantom.

Maklelan

What on earth are you talking about?

I've already explained that there's absolutely nothing about a story about walking on water that in any way precludes or even challenges the notion that he was born of human parents.

Another ridiculous round of naked assertions undergirded by a profound ignorance of biblical and cognate literature.

stephan huller

Yes Maklelan I am aware it was comical and having one of thousands here who have been frustrated by aa I thought it was a particularly apt description

aa5874

Well, the claim that Jesus was WITNESSED as he walked on sea and transfigured cannot, I repeat, cannot exclude the theory that gMark's Jesus story was a Myth Fable like Marcion's Myth Fable.

ALL you have is your unsubstantiated "NOTION" and No corroboration

I have WRITTEN statements in Mark 6 and Mark 9.


Now, you should know that an Apologetic source claimed MARCion Myth Phantom came directly to Capernaum the same time as MARk's Myth Jesus who had NO birth narrative and NO known human father.

Examine "Against Marcion" 4.7 attributed to Tertullian an apologetic source. Marcion's Phantom had NO birth narrative and NO known human father and was in the same place around the same time as gMark's Jesus that was BELIEVED to be a SPIRIT when he was WITNESSED as he walked on sea water.

gMark's Jesus was a PHANTOM just like Marcion's with NO birth and only apparent flesh.

Duvduv

P. C. Sense 100 years ago in his book called An Inquiry into the Third Gospel makes a strong argument against the view that Marcion was a docetist or gnostic.
It can be downloaded online.
But of course this draws into question the claims of people like "Irenaeus" and "Tertullian" about who and what Marcion truly was beyond the hype and propaganda, which has been accepted for so long about this guy Marcion.

aa5874

Apologetic sources like Justin Martyr, Hippolytus and Ephraim in his Prose "Against Marcion" do suggest the "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is fundamentally bogus.

Neither, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus and Ephraim claimed Marcion used the Pauline writings.

Duvduv

Good point. I have often been asking WHY if Justin lived at the same time as Marcion he never discusses what Marcion did or did not have as religious texts. Surely, whatever texts he did have would have been familiar to Justin.
But what about "Irenaeus"'s book, since next to nothing is known about Irenaeus?

Maklelan

The story is obviously a fabrication. How are you continuing to just completely and totally misunderstand me?

No, that's not "ALL" I have. I've already shared quite a bit that you've just flippantly tossed aside. You're the only one who has failed to produce any actual evidence of anything at all.

I've already explained numerous times exactly why those texts simply don't provide any support whatsoever for your little theory.

But he's explicitly described as first coming to earth from heaven. No such description is found in Mark. That's a rather critical oversight, there. Have you even read Against Marcion?

stephan huller

Even if he had read Against Marcion the information has to get processed in that brain of his. How is any edition of Tertullian going to make sense to aa if the author hasn't explained himself by used block capitals every tenth word and highlighted every third paragraph in red? aa speaks another language, thinks in a different manner, lives in a different dimension