aa5874

Again, TedM we are dealing with gMark and its contents NOT what you imagine about Isaiah 53.

Isaiah 53 is found in the Hebrew Bible and does NOT in any way abolish the Laws of God given by Moses for the Remission of Sins by the Sacrifice of Bulls, Goats and Birds.

Isaiah 53 is SPECIFICALLY and DIRECTLY to the JEWS alone and makes NO mention of a Crucifixion, or a Resurrection.

Again, you have taken Isaiah 53 out of context. Isaiah deals with Jerusalem in CAPTIVITY.

The prophet Isaiah prophesied that the Uncircumcised and the Unclean should NO longer come into Jerusalem and Enslave the Jews .

You must read ALL of Isaiah before you write your absurdities. The book of Isaiah has NOTHING at all about Remission of Sins for all mankind by the Killing and resurrection of the Son of God.

Examine Isaiah 52. The ENTIRE book of Isaiah was for the JEWS only and Against the Uncircumcised and Unclean--NOT to abolish the Laws of God of Sacrifice for Atonement of Sins.

There is NOTHING in Isaiah 53 about the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus AFTER three days as found in the gMark--NOTHING.

There is NOTHING about Remmission of Sins for ALL MANKIND by a crucifixion and resurrection in Isaiah 53.

TedM

You fail to recognize the the author of gMark doesn't need to share your view on Isaiah in order to use it. Which he does. Yet, you also fail to recognize that he does.

This is the problem I and many others have trying to discuss certain things with you. You are so literate that you are unable to place yourself in the position of other people even when the obvious is staring you in the face. You can't ask yourself whether gMark's author interpreted Isaiah differently than you interpret it--even though the passage is interpreted differently by numerous early Christian writers--all supporting the Suffering Servant Messianic interpretation that Mark had.

So, I'll ask you again: Why did Mark's Jesus have to die? Why did he have to be resurrected? These aren't just trivial questions. An answer like "because he said he had to for ransom" doesn't cut it. Ransom from what aa?

aa5874

I have EXPOSED your fallacies.

You never ever showed me any passage in Mark where Jesus was crucified and resurrected for the Sins of ALL Mankind.

You very well know that in gMark it is the character called Jesus who was claimed to be a RANSOM for the Jews.

Jesus was KILLED as a Ransom for the Evil of the Jews.

Jesus GAVE HIS LIFE for the wicked Jews in the short gMark

In Mark 10, the Jesus character, never ever claimed he would abolish the Laws of the God of Moses by his crucrifixion and resurrection.

Isaiah 53 has NOTHING whatsoever about a Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus.

Please, TedM, YOU ARE WASTING my time.

You are NOT intereseted in the answer. You are NOT interested in the written statements in gMark. You are interested in propaganda. You don't know what you are talking about and still DEMAND that you get an answer that you like.

Again, please first get a dictionary and look up the meaning of 'Ransom' and 'Resurrection'. I think a good dictionary will answer all your questions.

TedM

Yes. He gave is life for the salvation from sins. If you want to claim that it was only for the Jews, fine. Read on...

He didn't need to. Once someone interpreted his death and resurrection as a ransom for sins the Law and its requirement of animal sacrifice was no longer needed. That's Paul's theology, aa. Paul extended it to Gentiles but that was just a short step away..All could have occurred within a very short few years after the crucifixion. Paul's theology is ZERO evidence of a long timeline and authorship after gMark.

Again, the idea that a writer familiar with the Gospels pretended to be this Paul character to address issues as if they occurred 100 years prior, AND didn't use the Gospel Jesus in any meaningful way (why not quote from them to support his views?) and didn't even reference Jesus clearly as a healer or teacher, is ludicrous. It defies common sense. This phony Paul that you have created would have used the Gospels to support whatever points he wanted to make in all the epistles. Your theory is not just speculative, it is nonsensical and a foolish fantasy.

aa5874

No, No, NO!!!! Mark 10.45 does not state anywhere that Jesus would be crucified and resurrected for Remission of Sins for ALL Mankind.

We have gone through Mark 10 already.


Your post don't make much sense.

I have exposed your fallacies now you are making statements that show utter confusion.

These are the facts.

1. In the short gMark 2, Jesus forgave Sins before he was crucified.

2. In the short gMark Jesus did NOT want the outsiders to be converted but to remain in sin. See Mark 4.

3. In the short gMark, Jesus did NOT want the populace to know he was Christ.

4. In the short gMark 8, 9 and 10, Jesus TAUGHT his disciples he would be killed and then resurrect.

5.In the short gMark 16, the story ENDED when Jesus resurrected.

The short gMark has NOTHING whatsoever about remission of sins for all mankind by his crucifixion and resurrection but was a story about the REJECTION of the Son of God by the Jews and even his own disciples.

TedM

'Evil' and 'wicked' are words used in place of 'sin'. Why are you talking about "ALL Mankind"? That's WHO. We are talking about WHY. He died for SINS. Your quotes from other chapters are not relevant to this passage. This passage is about the reason Jesus DIED.



To you. Maybe you can point out which sentences you are having difficulty understanding. I'll try to help you.

maryhelena

Wow, Ted, thats a first for me - 'turning your back on interpretations that might reflect real history'. Ted, present the history.....

How many times does it have to be repeated - theology is not the way forward; theology clouds the eyes and closes the mind. What people believe is of no consequence in a search for early christian origins.

Ted, if you want to put the NT in a category of historical artifacts or traditions that portray or reflect a lack of moral or humanitarian concerns - do so! End of story. Each to his own.

History is not only about our dark side - it also celebrates our moral and humanitarian concerns. It is when we give reign to our better angels that we are able to make living well our focus. Reach for the stars, Ted - and let your inborn humanitarian shine.....

TedM

But what they would likely have believed is..you claimed they would not have believed in a crucified savior..I don't agree and gave logical reasons as to why. I haven't seen you address my points.

This all sounds like a new-agey kind of language that doesn't really say anything at all. It is as if you are speaking in a foreign language to me.. Sorry, I just don't see you addressing what I'm saying to you at all. Perhaps you can start by answering a couple of simple questions:

What kind of story do you want to find that doesn't have a crucified savior at its core? How and why would that story then ADOPT the crucified savior concept for its central theology?

maryhelena

I can just as easily throw that back at you - you have failed to address my arguments over humanitarian issues.

Ted, consider what you wrote earlier. post #439

That's the issue here. You are talking about a human flesh and blood sacrifice having a salvation value. I'm rejecting that notion by claiming that a human flesh and blood crucifixion has no salvation value whatsoever.

Support for a crucified Savior - yes, that concept is central to the NT - the debate is over whether that crucified Savior was a human flesh and blood sacrifice or a sacrifice of a mythical savior. Consequently, discussion between two people holding opposite views on the gospel JC, as you and I do, are futile. We talk at cross purposes. You accuse me of talking a "new-agey kind of language" and I'm accusing you of talking theology. i.e. we are talking past each other. The only mutual basis for further discussion is, therefore, history. That has to be put on the table. So, until you can do that - this discussion over a crucified NT Savior is going nowhere.

I'm not interested in debating or arguing over theology or what people believed about theology.

So, thanks, Ted, for the 'talk' - but it's reached a point where our different approaches are prohibiting any meaningful exchange. You want to run with your flesh and blood human crucifixion/sacrifice having salvation value - I want to run away from that abhorrent idea - so, really, there is nothing more to say...:wave:

Sheshbazzar

Loard Jezuz gawd maker of all things had to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself because he made us this way so that he would need to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself because he made us this way so that he would need to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself because he made us this way so that he would need to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself because he made us this way so that he would need to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself because he made us this way so that he would need to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself because he made us this way so that he would need to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself because he made us this way so that he would need to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself because he made us this way so that he would need to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself because he made us this way so that he would need to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself because he made us this way so that he would need to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself because he made us this way so that he would need to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself because he made us this way so that he would need to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself because he made us this way so that he would need to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself ........

I think we can all guess what comes next.