Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-11-2012, 11:00 PM

JonA: early Christians (and later ones) spent a lot of time arguing over whether Jesus was of the same substance as God, or a different divine substance, or other variations on the concept of the Trinity. These were the sort of arguments that gave "theology" a bad name.

Mythicism does not depend on whether those early Christians thought that Jesus was god, or an intermediary to god, or some other divine substance.

MrMacSon · 04-11-2012, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

There's nothing to explain. Mark's Jesus keeps himself separate from God throughout this Gospel (Mk 13:32, for example).

There is little on which to base the interpretation here that Jesus is declaring himself God.

" .. keeps himself separate from God throughout this Gospel .." & "Jesus .. declaring himself [or not]"

Do you propose or assume gMark is written or dictated by Jesus?

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-11-2012, 11:51 PM

No, he's saying that the character of Jesus in Mark is depicted as perceiving God as a separate entity from himself ("not my will, but yours be done," for instance).

dog-on · 04-12-2012, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Why do we have to be mean to each other? You might not like his book. But can't we at least show respect to a fellow participant at this board? I try and reserve my contempt for people who say what I consider to be completely idiotic and untenable positions. You may not agree that Jesus was God, but since there were people who did in antiquity it isn't a stupid POV. In the same way I don't agree with people who think that Jesus was a real person but since there were people with this opinion in antiquity I can't insult that position or people who argue on behalf of it.

Perhaps the dear reader did not, in fact, understand...

Steven Carr · 04-12-2012, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Perhaps you could tell us, Jon, when Jesus answered "I am" to the High Priest's question, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?" why in Mark's view this was blasphemy deserving of death, if the term were as innocuous as you'd like to think it was.

And if it was blasphemy, why were Christians not immediately stoned to death as blasphemers?

The crucifixion was the sticking point.

Clearly, Jews agreed with Christians that the Messiah was in their scriptures, but did not agree that the scriptures said the Messiah had to be crucified.

Otherwise, Jesus himself would have been the stumbling block, for exactly the same reasons that led up to his alleged crucifixion.

Just as people do not reject Hitler today because he died a shameful death in a bunker, and do not reject Mussolini today because he was hung upside down.

sotto voce · 04-12-2012, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Just got this book; though I made Mr. Doherty a promise that I would not be buying his books.

Wish I had kept my promise. The first two paragraphs into the introduction:

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle (2005):

Once upon a time, someone wrote a story about a man who was God.

We don't know who that someone was, or where he wrote his story. We are not even sure when he wrote it, but we do know that several decades had passed since the supposed events he told of. Later generations gave this storyteller the name of "Mark," but if that was his real name, it was only by coincidence. (p. 1)

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

I guess I don't read my gospels as closely as I should. I might be wrong—I'm serious about this, I really could be wrong—but I just can't find the part in Mark's gospel where he calls Jesus 'God'.

Am I missing something?

Jon

Yes. The point.

The whole point of the gospel attrib. Mark is that Jesus was 'God, with us'.

aa5874 · 04-12-2012, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

The whole point of the gospel attrib. Mark is that Jesus was 'God, with us'.

Yes. That is Precisely the point. The Jesus of gMark was a Mythological character.

Yes, In gMark, Satan, the God of the Jews, and Jesus, son of the God of the Jews are all considered Myths.

Yes, Yes, Yes!!!! That is PRECISELY why there is an ON-GOING SEARCH for an HUMAN Jesus.

Yes, the very fact that there is a QUEST for an historical Jesus by SCHOLARS is a most BLATANT CONSENSUS by SCHOLARSHIP that gMark's Jesus was NOT a figure of history.

Please, join the SEARCH for a NON-DIVINE Jesus you may be lucky.

Mark 15:39 KJV

Quote:

And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out , and gave up the ghost , he said , Truly this man was the Son of God.

JonA · 04-12-2012, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

JonA: early Christians (and later ones) spent a lot of time arguing over whether Jesus was of the same substance as God, or a different divine substance, or other variations on the concept of the Trinity. These were the sort of arguments that gave "theology" a bad name.

Mythicism does not depend on whether those early Christians thought that Jesus was god, or an intermediary to god, or some other divine substance.

We're talking about reading sources.

What early Christians believed or didn't believe is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Mark described his Jesus character as being God.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-12-2012, 06:02 AM

Mark thought it was blasphemy because he didn't know what the Messiah was and he didn't know what constituted blasphemy.

Just for the record, saying "I am" was not blasphemy (certainly not in Greek), and even verbalizing the Tetragrammaton (which Mark does not say Jesus did), contrary to popular belief, was not, per se blasphemy.

"Son of God" was not a claim to divinity either. All kings were sons of God, and even thoufh the Messiah was sometimes referred to as the son of God, the Messiah still wasn't God, so it doesn't matter.

Messiah
Son of God
Son of Man

None of those things implied divinity in normal, 1st Century Palestinian Aramaic speech, in Hebrew scripture or in Jewish tradition.

dog-on · 04-12-2012, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Mark thought it was blasphemy because he didn't know what the Messiah was and he didn't know what constituted blasphemy.

Just for the record, saying "I am" was not blasphemy (certainly not in Greek), and even verbalizing the Tetragrammaton (which Mark does not say Jesus did), contrary to popular belief, was not, per se blasphemy.

"Son of God" was not a claim to divinity either. All kings were sons of God, and even thoufh the Messiah was sometimes referred to as the son of God, the Messiah still wasn't God, so it doesn't matter.

Messiah
Son of God
Son of Man

None of those things implied divinity in normal, 1st Century Palestinian Aramaic speech, in Hebrew scripture or in Jewish tradition.

Though they did so in Mark's Gospel, dear reader. Understand!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-11-2012, 11:00 PM	#21
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	JonA: early Christians (and later ones) spent a lot of time arguing over whether Jesus was of the same substance as God, or a different divine substance, or other variations on the concept of the Trinity. These were the sort of arguments that gave "theology" a bad name. Mythicism does not depend on whether those early Christians thought that Jesus was god, or an intermediary to god, or some other divine substance.

04-11-2012, 11:51 PM	#23
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	No, he's saying that the character of Jesus in Mark is depicted as perceiving God as a separate entity from himself ("not my will, but yours be done," for instance).

04-12-2012, 06:02 AM	#29
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Mark thought it was blasphemy because he didn't know what the Messiah was and he didn't know what constituted blasphemy. Just for the record, saying "I am" was not blasphemy (certainly not in Greek), and even verbalizing the Tetragrammaton (which Mark does not say Jesus did), contrary to popular belief, was not, per se blasphemy. "Son of God" was not a claim to divinity either. All kings were sons of God, and even thoufh the Messiah was sometimes referred to as the son of God, the Messiah still wasn't God, so it doesn't matter. Messiah Son of God Son of Man None of those things implied divinity in normal, 1st Century Palestinian Aramaic speech, in Hebrew scripture or in Jewish tradition.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.