Half-Life

and God's voice? Apparently others around Jesus heard the voice. Could the Pharaoh hear it too?

Why would God limit his voice to one tiny part of the world if he's trying to get everyone to follow Jesus? :huh:

2-J

Cos then it would be too easy!

Only a few get a lucky break.

The rest have to work at faith.

Half-Life

This has always bugged me when believers say we must have faith.

On one hand, tons of babies die in miscarriages every year and believers say they are in Heaven. So, if babies dying in miscarriages or abortions send them right to Heaven, why are so many Christians pro-life considering they are ruining the perfect existence of their baby by subjecting them to this nasty world?

What if their child grows up and rejects the Gospel and goes to Hell? Would it not be better to just abort them and put them in Heaven right away without taking that chance?

Or what if my parents had me aborted? Wouldn't I be in Heaven rejoicing right now instead of being an atheist on my way to hell? :Cheeky:

I have never once received a decent answer from a believer.

Joan of Bark

Are you sure? The ancient Greeks knew the world to be spherical, and even did a pretty good job of estimating its circumference. Were the Palestinian Romans really that backwards?

gstafleu

That would correspond more closely with Mark's original, wouldn't it?

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

[my bold] Where is this apparentlified?

Gerard Stafleu

JoeWallack

JW:

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

In "Mark" this is a Private moment, for Jesus only, ("he", "him", "thou" and "thee"). Thus at the Sub-text level the Reader knows that Jesus is the son of God. This information though is hidden from the characters at the Text level.

"Matthew" has a primary objective of moving "Mark's" Revelation to supposed Historical witness and bending the Sub-text level to the Textual level:

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_3

Note here that "Matthew" has changed the scene into a Public one as God declares to an audience "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

The History of this story is exactly what we would expect for an Impossible one. Since it would be Impossible for Historical witness to witness an Impossible story, it would first have to be claimed based on Revelation ("Mark"). Subsequent "witness" ("Matthew") would than have to claim that it's source for the story was Historical witness (not Revelation). The above can simply be assumed in the absence of documentation but here, in an Act of Providence, we have the Christian Bible itself as Witness.

A/the source for "Mark's" story here is another Revelation, Paul's 1 Thessalonians:

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?tit...hessalonians_1

Paul's Gospel/Word comes unto the Thessalonians in God's Spirit. God's Gospel/Word comes unto the Jesus in God's Spirit

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?tit...hessalonians_2

Paul is well pleased that the beloved Thessalonians have received God's Gospel/Word because it contains a part of him. "Mark's" God is well pleased that the beloved Jesus has received God's Gospel/Word because it contains a part of Him.

"Mark" actually goes beyond Jesus' just receiving God's Word here. For "Mark" it is the "Birth" of Jesus Christ and that is why there is no genealogical information:

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1:11

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...ter=1&verse=11

καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα

ἐγένετο, this isn't simply "came out", it's:

Generate. In the context of "son" it means "birth". It's the Voice/Word from Heaven (Christ) that was born, not Jesus who was already born.

A problem for Christianity here regarding "Mark" that they have never been able to figure out in 2,000 years is, if Jesus was/is/will be God, how could he talk to himself here? I propose the following 3 solutions:

1) There really is more than 1 God but the God's, being omnipotent, foresaw that one day there would be Jewish lawyers, so under the terms of The Partnership Agreement, all Silent Partners agreed to remain silent for the first 4,000 years of the agreement so God could only be sued once for constructing a defective Adam.

2) The voice at the baptism was actually that of an extremely young George Burns rehearsing for his future role in Oh God, Part Jew.

3) In addition to his many other talents, Jesus was also the world's all-time greatest ventriloquist, able to throw his voice into the sky while under water.




Joseph

BAPTISM, n.
A sacred rite of such efficacy that he who finds himself in heaven without having undergone it will be unhappy forever. It is performed with water in two ways -- by immersion, or plunging, and by aspersion, or sprinkling.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

gstafleu

Has he? By your own quotation, "the heavens were opened unto him" and "he [not necessarily the bystanders] saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove". We are then left with 3:17, where the addressee of the voice is unspecified. But, given the narrow focus of the previous verse, would it not be the most logical to assume its focus is equally narrow?

Gerard Stafleu

Toto

The ancient Greeks had figured out that the earth was a sphere, but the Bible still reflects an earlier view of a round, flat earth with a canopy above it. How else could Satan take Jesus up and show him the four corners of the earth?

Note that for most practicle purposes of a Palestinian farmer or preacher, the earth might as well be flat, to an acceptable level of approximation.

By the middle ages, Christians had figured out that the earth was a sphere. The idea that Columbus had to persuade any of his backers of that is a myth.

Ben C Smith

The addressee is unspecified, yes, but surely it cannot be Jesus himself. IOW, the heavens open to Jesus (Greek αυτω, assuming this variant to be correct), but the voice cannot be addressing Jesus (assuming the full force of the reference in third person, this is my son). So the two focuses, regardless of how narrow, cannot be identical, and one therefore cannot really inform the other.

My own sense of the Matthean version (subject to change on a whim, of course), for whatever it may be worth, is that Matthew copied the private elements (the heavens opening on Jesus, Jesus seeing the spirit) over from Mark 1.10, but the public element (this is my son) over from Mark 9.7, where the hearers are the disciples.

I have the baptism and transfiguration passages laid out in parallel on my transfiguration notes and quotes page; I also have the relevant parallels from pseudo-Clement, 2 Peter, and the apocalypse of Peter.

Ben.

ETA: Also compare the voice from heaven at John 12.28-30, though with a very different message.