Diogenes the Cynic

Not sure I understand this question. More adoptionist than what?
No. Mark's intent has nothing to do with Ezekiel's intent.

aa5874

Mark's Adoptionism is a MASSIVE Conspiracy theory.

As soon as you imply that the author of gMark KNEW Jesus was a man then gMark's story is TOTAL fiction and Deception and was known to be False by potential converts.

You have CHANGED the story because the author of gMark made SURE he depicted his Jesus as a character that was NOT like a normal human being.

You very well know that gMark's Jesus was NOT ever claimed to have a human father.

And once you claim gMark's Jesus was KNOWN to be human then all sources that used gMark can be considered DECEIVERS.

Adoptionism by the author of gMark is least likely.

Adoptionism is just a Conspiracy theory where people of antiquity KNEW the Jesus story was a LIE but they still believed anyway.

Ezekiel shows that it was a story based on so-called Prophecies that was SIMPLY BELIEVED to be true.

thief of fire

Ok. I asked whether mark had the spirit entering into jesus. I thought you replied yes to that and explained that that was Marks adoptionism.

Does having the spirit enter rather than descend on enhance the argument for adoptionism?

I think I misunderstood you though.

Diogenes the Cynic

Ok.

No, I don't think Mark saw a difference. Being "in the spirit," or "under the spirit" was the same thing, and was a common way to refer to the authority of prophets.

It appears to have referred (at least in some cases) to altered mental states, trances, mystic states, etc, during which the Holy Spirit was believed to be speaking (or healing) through the prophet.

This kind of language and belief is still present in charismatic Christian traditions - "speaking in tongues," for instance.

aa5874

It matters NOT one bit how the Spirit "entered" Jesus if you argue that he was a Man he STILL could NOT have WALKED on the WATER and Transfigured.

If you have the Boldness to argue that it was NOT true that Jesus as a Man walked on water and transfigured then you are ARGUING that gMark is NOT a credible source. You are arguing that gMark is fiction.

Once you DISCREDIT gMark as NOT historically accurate then you HAVE zero SOURCES to argue for an historical Jesus.

Every event in gMark was PLAUSIBLE in antiquity that is PRECISELY why the early authors GOBBLED it up and COPIED virtually 100% of gMark. It was that good.

The author of the Long-Ending Mark SWALLOWED all of the Short-Ending gMark and added only 12 verses. It was so good.

The author of gMatthew did virtually the same thing and added the birth narrative and post-resurrection visits.

The first THREE Jesus stories are virtually identical from the Baptism to the Burial of Jesus--ALL FICTION.

The additional details are even worse. In the birth narrative Jesus was the son of a gHOST AND it was after the resurrection that he commissioned the disciples.

The gMark story is NOT history. It is about the Son of God that walked on water and transfigured.