gstafleu

Mark of course begins in 1.1 with calling Jesus the Son of God. Now even if this is a later addition (how much later?) it still shows that at some point he was seen that way.

Then in 1:11 we have "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." So he is definitely a close relative.

In 3:11 we have 'Whenever the evil spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God."' This is in keeping with the secrecy theme: apparently the spirits could see through his glasses disguise. Same in 5:7: those with supernatural insight, the spirits, recognize him for what he is. And finally in 15:39 the centurion, also in a moment of insight, says Jesus is the Son of God.

And isn't Mark constantly telling everybody not to reveal who he is? If the "what he is" is not his divinity, what is it?

So I would say that in Mark we are close enough to Jesus divinity for the difference not to matter.

In the other gospels we have many instances of Jesus being called Son of God, so I don't think that Jesus divinity inside the gospels is much of an issue.

Gerard Stafleu

Malachi151

Divine yes, but there is a difference between "Son of God" and "God".

gstafleu

Sure, but does that matter, aren't we dancing on the head of a pin by now? The essence seems to be that God sent something closely related to himself, be it a form of himself, and avatar, an incarnation, a son, a representation a.... to earth in human form.

BTW, Doherty has a lengthy piece about "The Son of Man Problem in his latest reader responses section.

Gerard Stafleu