sotto voce

But Mk 2:5-11 concerns not the commonly agreed principle of forgiveness, but identity of the one who forgives.

"Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Chili

He was an imposter like the one elaborated on in Rev.13:11-.

stephan huller

In Aramaic of the time 'Son of Man' = Bar Nasha and in literary Hebrew = Ben Adam. It could just mean “the one under discussion” or “the person”. As an allusion to Daniel 11, it meant a heavenly figure who acts to bring the will of God to earth.

sotto voce

Does that (if it is true) make any material difference in this context?

Duvduv

I am curious.....IF the author of this Mark gospel DID consider his Jesus to be the promised Jewish messiah (anointed one) why would be afraid to use the term at least once in the story?
On the other hand if he was even just a hidden "holy man" or miracle worker, then what would have made that so special in a world where such people would have been very common?
Unless he was perceived as neither an ordinary holy man/miracle worker NOR the rabbinic Davidic messiah, but a heavenly savior being per the views of some other sects.

aa5874

The author of the Short-ending gMark wrote a carefully crafted story.

The earliest gMark is NOT a story of a Messiah and Savior of the Jews but about the FULFILLMENT of prophecy.

In gMark Jesus was a MIRACLE worker who FED the hungry Jews, healed the Sick Jews, cast out the demons from the Evil Jews, brought back life to the Dead Jews, and even Forgave the Sins of the Sinful Jews and walked on the sea and Transfigured before his OWN disciples but his very disciples either betrayed, abandoned or denied him and the Jews REJECTED him when he Publicly declared he was the Messiah and Son of the Blessed.

Jesus of gMark FULFILLED so-called Prophecies of the Prophets in Hebrew Scripture and was written AFTER the Temple Fell and Jerusalem was made desolate.

The Jesus of gMark could NOT ever be a Jewish Messiah or called a Jewish Messiah once he was dead before he was known or accepted as a Jewish Messiah.

When gMark was written there was NO character called or known to be Jesus the Jewish Messiah.

A Jewish Messiah was a MOST SIGNIFICANT Jew and be MUST ALIVE when he was known or accepetd as Messiah.

Duvduv

Interesting observation. So how would we describe the SIGNIFICANCE or importance of such a person who was so important that a whole story was written about him if he was not claimed to be the promised Messiah?

stephan huller

Bultmann struggled with this question for some time first arguing that Jesus was likely speaking of someone else and then changed his position later in life. In order to believe that Jesus was speaking about himself you have to accept that the standard interpretation of the 'gospel secret' among the orthodox - i.e. that Jesus regularly spoke about himself in the third person (or conversely that it was a literary device of the author of the gospel in order to make Jesus's messianic identity secret).

IMO even the latter idea seems unnatural. If the gospel narrative is unnatural or accepts unnatural patterns of speech then anything is possible. The bottom line seems to be that we either accept that Jesus spoke in parables and enigmatic patterns of speech in order to make it difficult for the Jews to see that he was their messiah. This seems baffling but what are the alternatives?

Clearly Jesus is deliberately shielding the identity of the messiah. IMO a plausible explanation is that he was protecting the Christ to come from the Jews. In other words, by making the Jews think that he was claiming to be the Christ or God (it is never clear which of the two was original) they would seek out one who looked like Jesus and crucify him in the place of the one to come. But that is my theological prejudice based in large part on reading 'substitution literature' preserved among the heretical sects, rabbinic sources and the Islamic apocrypha.

Duvduv

But then why would Jesus forgive a sin and then speak about the ability of the Son of Man to forgive sin if he didn't mean himself in some way?

sotto voce

But nobody else in 1800 years had even thought the question worth asking.